Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

He seems to be talking about how we can know the truth of any matter. Well, in some cases we can't. And as for determinism it's all but impossible. Try listing all the reasons why you are reading this. It's not possible. But there are undoubtedly events that ocurred in the past that determined it.

I think he's trying to posit both and original cause (god), a possible causal chain of outcomes, and the existence of free will.

In other words, deterministic reality is pretty satisfying until morals and free will must be considered.

He starts with pointing out that tossing a coin a million times will allow to us state with some accuracy the number of heads. The more tosses, the greater the accuracy. But it's impossible to do it with one toss. So he classes that as, not exactly supernatural, but 'sub-natural'.

He's just ripping off Hume.

Say what? It's simply unpredictable. That's all. The result of each toss is determined by the spin, the humidity, the force, the temperature...what does it matter that we can't know all of the variables?

It's entirely predictable. I bet the toss will land as heads or tails.

He quotes Haldane: 'If mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain...I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true'.

He has no more reason to believe they are true than he doesn't.

There's an argument to be had against that statement, but his quote is irrelevant to free will so I won't make it.

The truth or falsity of free will is a belief lol.

We don't need to know the truth to make decisions. We make them on what we believe to be true.

Or what we believe is false....or anything else really.

Then he suggests that motions like prejudices are caused but ungrounded? In other words it cannot be known what caused it. That doesn't matter.

It's unclear we can know any cause of anything.

We're not looking for an explanation of everything. We don't need to know what caused something. Only to accept that it must have been caused.

Accept....on faith. This isn't a rational belief, strictly speaking.

So it doesn't matter that our knowledge of the world is incomplete and subjective.

Only if we're interested in whether or not deterministic reality is true.

if we are....yes, those things definitely matter.

We don't need to know the incontrovertable truth of any matter to make a decision. But that decision will be determined by antecedent conditions.

This presumes a couple of things....

1. That no one set of conditions can possibly lead to a different outcome.

2. That should the same conditions lead to different choices....either a mysterious cause of the gaps isn't known....or deterministic reality is false.

None of what he said has any bearing on free will.

I disagree. He's trying to make the deterministic argument with a beginning point (god) and a non-materialistic interventionist (god) to allow for things like "free will" and "moral beliefs" in a deterministic reality.

 

[Bradskii]

What Kane is saying is that our actions cannot be reduced to mere neuron and nervous activity making the arm move in the case of the angry husband hitting the table...

But he offers no mechanism for this whatsoever. Except that 'we' do it.

In all these situations despite the factors that may influence choices the Self is brought in to override these factors, despite these factors. A conscious commitment to the action ie the assassin chose to pull the trigger and then affirmed his choice once it was done ie target hit and job done.

There is no other 'Self' whether you capitalise it or not. Every aspect of what it means to be you is part of the antecedent conditions. You aren't separate from the process. You are part of the process. Do you wantto pull tne trigger? Break tbe glass? Help someone in trouble or and your interview? That's all part of the process. It's what you eventually decide that you prefer. And that has been determined. There's no little man in a room somewhere in the brain that is not part of the process. This view went out of fashion nearly 200 years ago.

Not really. I like Kanes explaination as I think it actually reflects and breaks down what actually happens with Self Forming Actions which require conscious input as opposed to unconscious processes.

Nobody has said that decisions are only based on unconscious processes. This is a strawman.

Its not just speculated but also based on neuroscience that there is more than one process going on in the brain at different levels. Thats why we can have two minds about a dilemma and have to put ourselves into the situation to workout a way forward.

Irrelevant.

Whereas the Hard determinist view keeps repeating an assumption without much explanation. Well its the same repeated explanation over and oover that doesn't seem to reflect reality

It's repeated because there is no other explanation. Everything is cause and effect. And you've not given a single example of anything to the contrary.

...as there is no basis as to what is right or wrong morally. This seems to go with no free will, the same kind of logic.

Please stop saying this. It's wrong, it's been explained to you that it's wrong and nobody has suggested that they hold this view. Please cease and desist.

 

[Neogaia777]

What Kane is saying is that our actions cannot be reduced to mere neuron and nervous activity making the arm move in the case of the angry husband hitting the table, the assassin pulling the trigger and the business women having to choose between helping the victim being mugged or getting to her appointment to not lose her career.

Why can't they be?

In all these situations despite the factors that may influence choices the Self is brought in to override these factors, despite these factors. A conscious commitment to the action ie the assassin chose to pull the trigger and then affirmed his choice once it was done ie target hit and job done.

Nope, wrong.

There are reasons for the competing wills/self, and it is all determined.

It is this aspect of self forming actions as opposed to deterministic or rather despite deterministic influences that makes free will choices.

And I'm guessing you can prove this?

Theres a battle of wills going on, a person is in two minds and can potentially be both and either but ends up choosing and endorcing one over the other and willing to accept responsibility for it.

Those two wills are by design, and whichever will the person goes with were the ones with the most power or influence over them, which is always a calculation of what was before or prior, or of causes, reasons, and antecedent condtions.

Not really. I like Kanes explaination as I think it actually reflects and breaks down what actually happens with Self Forming Actions which require conscious input as opposed to unconscious processes.

Well of course you like it, as it agrees with your already decided, predetermined position.

You, or Kane, has absolutely no proof of anything either one of you are saying, etc.

Its not just speculated but also based on neuroscience that there is more than one process going on in the brain at different levels. Thats why we can have two minds about a dilemma and have to put ourselves into the situation to workout a way forward.

And that's all a deterministic process, and has already been decided already. The two conflicting wills/sides is by design, but whichever one wins out, was the one that was always meant to win out, based on deterministic processes.

Whereas the Hard determinist view keeps repeating an assumption without much explanation.

So do you, and a lot of flowery words that mean nothing. And I have also tried to explain it the best I can, etc.

Well its the same repeated explanation over and over that doesn't seem to reflect reality.

It's actually your guys view that doesn't reflect the reality that we can clearly see in this day and age now, etc.

Everything from the atom up is our proof.

What's yours?

More nonsense?

Its a bit like how some claim evolution, natural selection as the creator of everything from phenotypes to alturism which doesn't account for what is actually going on beyond genes. Such as how creatures make purposeful and directed choices about their enviornments rather than being passively acted upon by outside forces.

So you don't believe in evolution now?

Are you a YEC?

Thats doesn't make sense. Just like if there is no objective morality choice is a matter of differences and not morality. Like taste for food or feelings for things. So it makes no sense talking about making things better as there is no basis as to what is right or wrong morally.

People decide what is right and wrong, with the expectation that other people will follow it. And it will be different for different groups, and will change or evolve (or de-evolve/dissolve) over time, etc.

This seems to go with no free will, the same kind of logic.

Sure.

I think we believe people are accountable not because we have to despite the claim there is no free will, like its some arbitrary determination or an insurance policy to keep society from chaos. Rather because of our 1st hand lived reality of it. Thats it, its that simple and we don't need 3rd person rationalisations of the why's and wherefores.

Do you not know the difference between saying someone is either responsible or accountable, and having to hold them accountable for it anyways?

And yes, it is to keep or maintain order, and to keep our societies from descending into complete and total chaos, or absolute anarchy, etc.

That is what makes us so sure, so determined and worried that people need to be responsible.

You believe people need to be responsible, etc. I don't, etc.

Because its 'real' and we live that responibility or lack of and embody its reality.

You're talking nonsense again, etc.

Its a bit like moral realism. There can be no more better evidence than direct experience of something.

Again, you are talking nonsense. People all define the kind of words you are trying to use very, very differently, etc. So you are making "no sense", and are just talking a bunch of philosophical nonsense right now, etc.

It seems strange that Hard Determinist will say there is no free will but then act like there is free will and then have to explain how even though its not real we have to act like its real.

I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you, if you can't tell, etc. The past is done/gone, but we still have to hold people accountable for it regardless of if they actually are accountable for it or not, etc. And the future is unknown, and so we still try to get them to change it, etc.

Like our acting that its real is not really real but manufactured. Or that if it is seemingly real its a epi realism, not quite the real thing but imposed for some secondary reason like keeping order.

That's exactly the reason we do it, to keep and maintain order, and have the opposite of chaos/anarchy, etc.

But like subjective morality there is no reason to hold people accountable.

I am right now telling you the reasons.

Morals are subjective and could change like tastes in music.

Yes, they can, and do, and should, but what's your point?

We are either responsible because we are actually responsible for our free choices and there is a truth to right and wrong or stop pretending.

Responsible or accountable or not, we still have to hold them responsible or accountable regardless.

Are you not understanding that difference?

It really undermines Self as something real.

Self is ultimately sinful, and selfish, and according to the Bible, should be completely given up on/forsaken, and abandoned/forgotten.

All seems very cynnical and robotic and unreal as to what we actually experience and sometimes what we actually experience is a true reflection of what is actually going on. Its like trying to rationalise love away lol.

There is nothing special about any of the terms that you are using, and they are all deterministic.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

But he offers no mechanism for this whatsoever. Except that 'we' do it.

Yes he does which once again either shows you have not properly viewed it or your not understanding his reasoning. Here is the section Kane explains a different way to understand free will.

The first is that indeterminism would not have to be involved in all acts of our own free will for which we are ultimately responsible. Many such acts may flow determinantly from a will already formed. Not all such acts would have to be undetermined but only those we have made ourselves into the kind of persons we are.

Kane calls them Self Forming Actions (SFA). I believe these undetermined SFA would occur at those difficult times in life when we are torn between competing visions about what we should do and become. Perhaps we are torn between doing the moral thing or acting from ambition or between powerful present desires and long term goals. Or we are faced with difficult tasks for which we have aversions. In all such cases we are faced with competing motivations and have to make an effort to overcome temptation to do something else we strongly want to do.


Theres a tension and uncertanty in our minds about what to do and may be reflected in appropriate regions of the brain. A kind of stiring up of chaos in the brain which would make it sensitive to indeterminacies at the neural level. The uncertainty and inner tension we would feel at such soul searching moments of self formation would thus be reflected in the indeterminancy of our neural processes.

What is experienced internally as uncertanty would correspond physically to the opening up of a window of opportunity which would temporarily screen off complete determination by influences of the past.

By contrast when we are not torn in this way about what to do about our acting from predominant motives and settled routines the indeterminancy would be muted and not amplified. If we did decide on situations of uncertanty the outcome would not be determined because of the preceding indeterminancy. And yet it could be willed and hense rational and voluntary either way owing to the fact that such self formation the agents prior will are divided by conflicting motives.

I think this is a very reasonable explanation. Its at times of soul searching when we are deeply conscious about ourselves and what to do, when we are in two minds and theres indeterminacy about which way to go. When we have to overcome temptation. This is the indeterminancy and its reflected in brain activity.

So something is happening that allows indeterminacy to come into the picture where we have to inject ourselves into resolving things one way or the other. When we do that as Kane says it opens a windown of opportunity. But something also corresponds with neural activity like the mind shuts off the determinant influences like a valve perhaps which brings our conscious selves into the equation and its at this point where we are getting involved and taking responsibility.

As Kane mentions its a bit like a novel where we are both the character and the author and are developing or as Kane says Self Forming with these conscious choices and actions. Consciousness seems to come in at the beginning (the goal) and there are determininant influences as well. But conscious then comes in at the end where we own the choice and action.

This explanation seems to fit very well with what actually happens with free will. We experience the indeterminancy as being not sure, moral dilemmas, sometimes even becoming frustrated by not fully knowing what to do. But we come to some resolution and even if we make the wrong choice we still own it. That seems to be something like the story we tell ourselves anyway.

There is no other 'Self' whether you capitalise it or not. Every aspect of what it means to be you is part of the antecedent conditions. You aren't separate from the process. You are part of the process.
Do you want to pull tne trigger? Break tbe glass? Help someone in trouble or and your interview? That's all part of the process. It's what you eventually decide that you prefer. And that has been determined. There's no little man in a room somewhere in the brain that is not part of the process. This view went out of fashion nearly 200 years ago.

I disagree. Your looking at this too machinically. We know there is a Self. I capitalise it because it is a real thing in this context as opposed to mechanics. We also know the mechanical schema is inadequate for explaining things like consciousness and psychology.

Its not a matter of two selves but that the one self can be in two minds. That is still a conflict within self as though there are different and opposing influences happening at the same time.

Therefore we can in a way have an arguement with self, be conflicted about which self we want to formulate. That is the indeterminancy that evokes conscious free wil to coime into the picture because we have to resolve this within ourselves one way of the other.

I could spectualte that this indeterminancy is like the quatum wave state. We can be in limbo when we are stuck facing a choice and then once the choice is made everything collapses into one reality that we now have to live with. In that sense Conscious Self is fundemental in creating that reality just like the assassin who takes the shot or the angry husband who ends up breaking the glass table.

Nobody has said that decisions are only based on unconscious processes. This is a strawman.

And I did not say that decisions are only based on unconscious processes. So thats a strawman of a strawman lol.

Irrelevant.

I dislike it when some just says 'Irrelevant' and then leaves you hanging as to why lol. I think it is relevant because the indeterminancy felt in such conscious deliberations actually have a physical basis in the brain and that determinant processes don't always overide when we are making self forming choices.

It's repeated because there is no other explanation. Everything is cause and effect. And you've not given a single example of anything to the contrary.

Hard determinism is an assumption. In fact fundementally the evidence points to indeterminism. Penrose mentions the quantum brain so maybe theres some connection. There are some good ideas out there regarding the observer based interpretations.

It seems to me there is a lot in common which may offer more explanation than the stock standard everything is materially caused as thats an assumption itself and not scientific.

Please stop saying this. It's wrong, it's been explained to you that it's wrong and nobody has suggested that they hold this view. Please cease and desist.

Ok so you agree there is an objective morality beyond human views and feelings.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok so you agree there is an objective morality beyond human views and feelings.

You are not listening to a thing I say. Please bother someone else with this nonsense.

 

[stevevw]

Why can't they be?

I think because it doesn't match the reality of how we make important choices.

Nope, wrong.

So all that talk and assention we tell ourselves and the responsibility we assign for those choices in forming ourselves is just talk. Just mumblings we tell ourselves to make us feel better that we make a difference. Our neurons got the better of us.

There are reasons for the competing wills/self, and it is all determined.

Your missing the point. Its despite those reasons and some of those determined reasons are involved as well but not just those reasons. Your creating an either/or fallacy by assuming all influences are determined and determinancy cannot also be involved in free will but not in all situations.

Especially those as Kane said the soul searching choices where temptation is involved. The choices in how we form ourselves. These are different to the unconscious processes.

And I'm guessing you can prove this?

Like I said Kane provided evidence of paralelle processing in the brain. It could be one can override the other especially when consciousness gets involved.

If there is a Self moving and forming in the world then the evidence comes from your own conscious awareness of that movement and forming. All the talks you have with self, trying to work out which way to go, who you want to be. Thats the real Self. Thats unless you want toi say its all just self deception and not real. But then that would be as silly as saying we have no self determination.

Those two wills are by design, and whichever will the person goes with were the ones with the most power or influence over them, which is always a calculation of what was before or prior, or of causes, reasons, and antecedent condtions.

Your missing the point. Its the fact we have two minds and opposing wills when it comes to certain self forming choices in the first place. That we can be in such an indeterminant state where our past does not always determine the future. This ability seems to be above deterministic forces.

Well of course you like it, as it agrees with your already decided, predetermined position.

Lol what is that. Now your attributing what my mind is saying. Was that based on your free choice or were you always going to say that lol. Or was it your own projected feelings.

You, or Kane, has absolutely no proof of anything either one of you are saying, etc.

lol it wasn't my link. That was a link supporting determinism but it turned out to be a reasonable explanation of free will. Not because of any prior positions but because it just makes good sense. You will also not Kane qualified his lecture by saying that we need to understand free will from science even though its a philosophical issue as well.

But what I like as far as evidence is that he also tracks the realistic thinking and behaviour that goes with the examples he gave. We can all say that is how we experience those situations. We are invested, we do experience indeterminancy when making Self Forming Actions and decisions and we own them. Hard Determinism does not track that reality. It just dismisses all that as not real or at least not causually real.

And that's all a deterministic process, and has already been decided already. The two conflicting wills/sides is by design, but whichever one wins out, was the one that was always meant to win out, based on deterministic processes.

Sounds a bit like natural selection. Whichever self gene wins out or whichever fittest. A mathmatical equation that doesn't fit with lived reality. So all the self talk, reflection, moral deliberations, conflicts about what to do and how best to form ourselves in the world is just gobblie gook because the choice was already determined. Seems like your casting an aweful lot of who we are into the trash bin.

The idea of two minds, moral dilemmas and overcoming temptation (which we can do) is that its something real we can change things. Go against the grain. It is these times when the self forming choices rise above the deterministic ones. Sometimes riding on the back of them but not determined by them.

So do you, and a lot of flowery words that mean nothing. And I have also tried to explain it the best I can, etc.

Thank you I think. Um ok they mean nothing to you but they may mean something to others. I guess thats why this debates been going for 100 years like consciousness and still not clear evidence either way. I guess as its more a philosophical question and everyone has an opinion.

It's actually your guys view that doesn't reflect the reality that we can clearly see in this day and age now, etc.

Actually I think what reflects this day and age is that free will is real and not such stop gap thing we must keep telling ourselves to keep society in order. It seems our lived reality as opposed to our mental rationalisations point to the reality of free will.

Hard Determinist keep telling us free will is some illusion and we keep living like its not an illusion. Is that an illusion within an illusion. I don't think we are that deluded. The reality we live is reality full stop. If its not then treat it like it is because we need it.

Everything from the atom up is our proof.

No thats an assumption. The atom itself is based on QM. There is no break in the chain. The atoms that make up a table are based on the enerngy of QM. But even if all is atoms up why can't the observer, conscious choices by something fundementally that alters things. Experiments seem to support this. At some level the mind and self has to come in and influence things.

What's yours?

More nonsense?

Do you think that there is no such thing as free will but we will act like there is good sense. Or do you think we act like there is free will because there is makes better sense. It seems the more simple explanations (Ozcams razor) that having to cite 1,000s of complex processes being responsible and yet not matching up with what is actually happening in real life.

So you don't believe in evolution now?

Are you a YEC?

No I support evolution. Just not the traditional story. Mines more an expanded view where creatures play the central role in directing evolution. But this as paralelles with free will and agency. Evolutions tends to make agents passive players rather than acknowledge agency as a evolutionary force in itself.

People decide what is right and wrong, with the expectation that other people will follow it. And it will be different for different groups, and will change or evolve (or de-evolve/dissolve) over time, etc.

Yes that is subjective and relative morality. Just like we live like free will is real despite saying it doesn't exist. The same with morality. We say morality is subjective and relative to the situation or culture but we live like its objective. It seems we are living all these realities and we are being told there just illusions. Hum I see a common theme in all this.

I will have to come back to the rest as its quite a long post. So thankyou for your input so far.

PS In the meantime I found a critique of Kanes hypothesis which explains in more detail with criticisms. I think this will help to understand what he is saying as the video was a bit hard to follow not being scripted. Its interesting that DanielDennet of all people has similar ideas about free will.

Robert Hilary Kane

Information Philosopher is dedicated to the new Information Philosophy, with explanations for Freedom, Values, and Knowledge.

www.informationphilosopher.com

 

[stevevw]

You are not listening to a thing I say. Please bother someone else with this nonsense.

look I get frustrated with these games. You clearly don't support objective morality independent of humans as we have had this debate before. But you dance around it. I understand you can make arguements for science or some human determination of objective morality but that has already been knocked down and its clearly not what I am referring to if I am aligning objective morality and free will with consciousness beyondf brain. So I don't know what you mean. My problem may be that I do listen to you too much.

All this has come from your post objecting to my statement that 'no free will' is like no objective morality beyond humans and no consciousness beyond brain. Its a simple claim and well acknowledged that these go together. You tying yourself in knots over semantics about what I meant by each individual issue I named.

Just take them together as the skeptics or materialists or atheist position. Sure not all materialist believe theres no free will. But generally they go together. Thats the only and simple point I was making. All you had to do was go yeah or I disagree. But you completely missed it with semantics or some misinterpretation you had in your mind about what I was saying.

Perhaps I could saythe same to you. Your not listening or clarifying what I am saying before you jump into semantics about it. Maybe its a miscommunication both ways.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

There's no way to know for certain.

I don't think certainty is possible (beyond the Cartesian 'cogito ergo sum'), but I'm inclined to prefer the simpler option, particularly when it accords with our currently accepted framework of knowledge and doesn't invoke ill-defined concepts.

Like wanting a Pepsi to drink.

Sure, and?

The "cause of the gaps".

I am unaware of the causality of many of my bodily sensations and unaware of most of the activity therein, but I have no good reason to doubt that the sensations have prior causes and that the activity is occurring. There is good evidence that modulating brain activity via techniques like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can lead to changes in cognitive processes, including decision-making, moral reasoning, and social judgments.

For example, studies have shown that stimulating certain areas of the brain, such as the prefrontal cortex, can alter moral decision-making. For instance, applying TMS to this region may lead individuals to make more utilitarian choices, prioritizing outcomes that maximize overall happiness, even if it means sacrificing individual rights. Brain stimulation can also affect individuals' opinions on social and political issues. Research indicates that stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can enhance cognitive flexibility, making people more open to considering alternative viewpoints or changing their opinions based on new information.

IOW, there's good evidence that even subtle high-level moral & social judgments are the product of brain activity.

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

I described how, in the absence of an obvious value distinction (preference of drink) other values, e.g. location, can become influential.

Is it?

Yes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

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

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

Yes and no. There are plenty of examples of complex and surprising phenomena that appear when a collection of relatively simple elements interact en masse. IOW, emergent behaviours. Two in particular stumped us for centuries - fire and life. Fire was once thought to be a fundamental element until the 17th & 18th centuries when it was thought to be a chemical element (phlogiston). Finally, it was found to be a progressive chemical reaction, i.e. a process. Life was once thought to require a 'vital force' that departed at death, but it too was eventually shown to be a complex self-sustaining reaction - a process (of the same fundamental type as fire: redox).

I agree with David Chalmers that the various functions and mechanisms of the brain, such as how the it processes sensory information, how it integrates experiences, and how it produces behavior are amenable to empirical investigation and can, in principle, be explained in terms of physical processes. He calls these the 'easy' problems of consciousness (because they're amenable to empirical investigation).

In contrast, what he calls the 'Hard Problem' is why there is subjective experience at all, why there is something it is like to be consciously aware, and why experiences have a qualitative aspect.

There's plenty of evidence supporting brain activity as the generator of subjective experience - again, modulating brain activity can alter the quality of experience in various ways, but it seems that the existence of subjective experience is not amenable to (necessarily objective) explanation. I suspect the best we can do is to show that complex information processing systems that can process the kind of information a mammalian brain does, and in a similar way, are likely to have subjective experience. IOW, it is an emergent property of that kind of activity.

I think it's possible that we'll discover the precise physical requirements for consciousness, if not why subjective experience has the quality it does - that may just be a brute fact of those requirements.

In what way?

See above.

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

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

Quantum physics is our best model of how the world works - which, IMO, makes it the first place to look.

By 'effectively deterministic' I mean in the physics sense that the stochastic uncertainty of quantum mechanics 'averages out' to be effectively deterministic at macro scales. The scaling theory describing this was pioneered by Ken Wilson, who showed how the fundamental properties and forces of a system vary depending on the scale over which they are measured, and that the laws & behaviours at different scales allow you to ignore what's happening at lower scales. It's a kind of law of emergence - a simple example is that you don't need to know the masses, positions & velocities of all the atoms in a planet to calculate its orbit; all you need is its mass and centre of gravity.

In this way, current quantum theory completely explains the everyday workings of the world at human scales - in terms of interactions of protons, neutrons, electrons and the gravitational and electromagnetic forces. There are other known forces, e.g. the strong & weak nuclear forces, but (ignoring radioactive decay) they're not relevant at macro-scales. there may be undiscovered forces, but they're too weak or short-range to be significant or we'd have discovered them already. There may be undiscovered particles but they're too rare or too light to be significant in everyday life.

Finally, we have a good indication of the degree to which 'true' (quantum) randomness influences the macro scale by the reliability & predictability of the physical world at macro-scales; e.g. electronic and biological systems - it's only when you approach atomic scales that quantum effects begin to become significant (chaotic systems are deterministic but unpredictable).

If the world is effectively deterministic and humans are part of the world, human behaviour is effectively deterministic.

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

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

The justice system determines how laws should be applied and what the consequences of breaching them should be. Those consequences will vary according to how particular breaches and those that breach them are viewed. We already apply the concept of 'mitigating circumstances' for some, I'm suggesting this would apply to all. Sentencing would be along the lines of assessing reparations and how best to rehabilitate the offender and/or protect society in future.

ISTM that a humane and enlightened society would take this approach regardless of belief in free will - causing suffering to someone purely for the emotional satisfaction of others should, IMO, be discouraged, not least for pragmatic reasons. It is well-established that positive reinforcement is a more effective way to change behaviour than negative reinforcement - the carrot trumps the stick. Acknowledging a lack of free will provides additional pragmatic and logical grounds for this approach.

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

I don't recall claiming what you suggest, but I think the disturbance I sometimes feel is the conflict between the feelings and the rational explanation; an analogy might be the disturbing feeling when you're in a traffic jam in the middle lane of a motorway and you stop, but the lanes either side crawl forward which makes you feel you're rolling backwards...

I don't feel morally superior, I think those who believe in free will are (understandably) mistaken, and that a lack of that belief would provide a compelling reason to revise the way the law is administered to be more humane and effective for all concerned.

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

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

I understand that - it's my main point. If what feels like a choice is actually inevitable, and we're not really choosing to do harm, punishment for the harm we do only makes sense as a deterrent, and the evidence suggests that, in general, the threat of punishment is not a particularly effective deterrent.

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

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

Opening the door on the left is not the same as opening the door on the right - they're different doors, so they require different actions to open. The decision you make to open one door rather than another, whether consciously deliberated or 'on the spur of the moment' has a preceding causal sequence you may or may not be aware of, possible examples of which I described previously.

I didn't say it was uncaused.

I was describing the alternative - a door could be chosen at random, but otherwise there would be a reason, a determining cause, for one door to be chosen over the other, even when the individual was not aware of any preference. Ultimately, there is some evidence for various neurological 'tie-breaker' mechanisms the brain has for avoiding low-level decision paralysis.

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

The cause of them having to choose a door is always the same (escape), but the reasons for their choice (conscious or subconscious) of one door rather than the other may not the same if the individual has changed between visits (which they inevitably will have, even if you somehow wipe their memory of the room).

The only guarantee that they will choose the same door again is if all the circumstances are identical, including the individual - which is impossible because things change over time, particularly complex processors of experience like brains. For example, the experienced outcome of opening a door (pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant) creates a subconscious association between opening that door and the outcome, which could influence the choice next time, even if they don't remember the room or the doors.

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

I would accept it - clearly, their goal in that situation would be to leave the room. But in order to leave the room they would have to plan and decide on a course of action, i.e. choose a door (a sub-goal). There would be conscious or unconscious considerations leading to them choosing a door.

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

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

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

Maybe an analogy will help clarify my point - If my ultimate goal is to retire comfortably well-off (leave the room), I just have to save enough money (open a door). But in order to save enough money, I need to plan and decide how often to save, how much to save, where to save it, e.g. what kind of investments, etc (choose door). These are decisions that have prior causes - I may have heard it's better to save little and often, or I may choose to drop a lump sum into a prime investment I read about, and so on. Similarly, as I already described, the individual will have conscious or subconscious reasons, in the two-door room, for choosing one door over another, even if there's no indication where they lead, or if they're both open and obviously lead to the same place.

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

See above.

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

I'm not absolutely certain, but, to cut a long story short, given the quality & quantity of evidence in support and notable lack of evidence against, my credence is very high.

The reason for the door choice isn't necessarily extraneous, although it will probably ultimately be the product of prior experiences, i.e. extraneous influences.

I still don't really know what you mean by a 'free will choice', if it doesn't involve any of what I've described. Can you describe what your thought process might be, in the two-door room, concerning which door to choose in order to escape?

 

[Bradskii]

look I get frustrated with these games

You literally said this:

...you agree there is an objective morality beyond human views and feelings.

That is utterly, completely, catastrophically, galactically wrong. What is the POINT of me putting my position to you if you completely ignore it? You are just making stuff up. Literally.

So please correct that quote above to accurately reflect my view. Or there will be a means available to me whereby I don't have to bother with this junk anymore.

Your next post will correct that if you please.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

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

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

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

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

How? Did you choose to?

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

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

Not having a belief in free will doesn't make for unfeeling creatures without emotions; you still feel sympathy, empathy, love, anger, hate, betrayal, etc. There is still room for human rights and accepted norms of behaviour. People (generally) would have a sense of personal responsibility.

IOW, things would not be very different - each individual would feel a sense of freedom of action, but acknowledge that what they do is a product of the context and kind of person they are, and the kind of person they are is determined by the product of their genetic inheritance and their life experiences. They would apply this understanding to others and, retrospectively, to themselves.

 

[stevevw]

You literally said this:

That is utterly, completely, catastrophically, galactically wrong. What is the POINT of me putting my position to you if you completely ignore it? You are just making stuff up. Literally.

So please correct that quote above to accurately reflect my view. Or there will be a means available to me whereby I don't have to bother with this junk anymore.

Your next post will correct that if you please.

Ah thats why I proposed, ' then you agree that there is no objective morality beyond human made determinations such as likes, dislikes, feelings and determinations ect. An alternative proposal as you rejected my definition. I perhaps should have put the 'do' at the beginning. But I was narrowing down what your position. You said I got your position wrong about objective morality.

Because the last time I recall and maybe I am mixing you up with someone else but I know we have had debates about this so I am basing it on that.

Like I said I know some try to ground morality with science, or with human wellbeing and all that. Or on feelings and persuasion. But these have been knocked down or at least have many flaws in the arguements. So I am not sure what you are meaning by objective morality.

Remembering that objective morality is independent of human subjective determinations. Remembering that the type of objective independence that is beyond humans usually implies a moral lawgiver which I thought skeptics, materialists and atheists reject.

It seems where your going wrong is that you are assuming what I said is wrong and that you are right. Is that the truth or just your truth lol. Its not wrong as a matter of logic. You can't have more than one objective moral truth. Subjective and relative moral truths are impossible as they are only true for the subject or relative culture.

They are not ultimately truth above all people and all cultures. Hense moral subjectivists reject any ultimate moral truth above all people and cultures to allow subjective and relative morality.

If you believe there is an objective moral truth beyond human feelings and preferences that is not created by humans then this implies something at the very least transcendent of humans if not a moral agent of some sort as human truth is subjective and cannot be the basis for moral truth. Well thats the moral relativists poistion anyway..

If you disagree then you would need to argue that and I don't think we have done so. If we have then your assuming you have won said debate which is not the case. I don't think anyone can. Its logically impossible.

Also remembering as Hume said 'you can't get an is from an ought'. So you can't use science or human wellbeing that relies on science. Morality like consciousness is a completely different category to science and feelings ect and cannot be reduced to this. Funny pretty similar to free will and consciousness.

And that seems a long way to go about things and brings us right back to my original point that free will, consciousness and morality seem to have these different category qualities and different from the deterministic physical processes which are more mechanical and reducible to naturalistic causes. Hense my original claim which was sidetracked that materialistists and atheists seem to have this in common.

 

[Chesterton]

He seems to be talking about how we can know the truth of any matter. Well, in some cases we can't. And as for determinism it's all but impossible. Try listing all the reasons why you are reading this. It's not possible. But there are undoubtedly events that ocurred in the past that determined it.

He starts with pointing out that tossing a coin a million times will allow to us state with some accuracy the number of heads. The more tosses, the greater the accuracy. But it's impossible to do it with one toss. So he classes that as, not exactly supernatural, but 'sub-natural'. Say what? It's simply unpredictable. That's all. The result of each toss is determined by the spin, the humidity, the force, the temperature...what does it matter that we can't know all of the variables?

That's not how he starts. The first paragraph about that begins by him saying he's mentioning something "on which I myself will base no argument". He's talking about quantum mechanics, which was new enough then that it might not have had a name. I am glad he mentioned it though, since in the decades since he wrote, QM has proven to grow even more problematic for determinism.

He quotes Haldane: 'If mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain...I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true'. There's an argument to be had against that statement, but his quote is irrelevant to free will so I won't make it. We don't need to know the truth to make decisions. We make them on what we believe to be true.

Then he suggests that motions like prejudices are caused but ungrounded? In other words it cannot be known what caused it. That doesn't matter. We're not looking for an explanation of everything. We don't need to know what caused something. Only to accept that it must have been caused.

So it doesn't matter that our knowledge of the world is incomplete and subjective. We don't need to know the incontrovertable truth of any matter to make a decision. But that decision will be determined by antecedent conditions.

None of what he said has any bearing on free will.

It was Mere Christianity I'd read. And this quote from it is interesting where he discusses free will specifically:

'Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.'

He's not come to a realisation that we have free will. He assumes that it's a God given certainty. And as Swift said, if you haven't been reasoned into a position then you won't be able to be reasoned out of it (and that's applicable to a lot of people who have posted in this thread). So any and all his arguments for free will are based on the position that it exists.

So examine the statement above. And tell me if you made a free will decision to love your wife or your kids. Or that you made a free will decision to be happy when something delightfull happened. Free will is often confused with making decisions. But you didn't even get that far when you loved or when you felt joy. If you didn't actually make a decision in those circumstances, then where on earth could the free will be there?

Lewis is wrong. Very wrong in the example he gave.

I guess I misspoke when I said it was fairly easy to understand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was Mere Christianity I'd read. And this quote from it is interesting where he discusses free will specifically:

'Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.'

At least he seems to understand that the mere possibility of these being real things and not merely illusions (like the determinist views free will) is dependent upon free will.

I can't even think of a serious philosopher who is a determinist and believes that morals are both objective and real lol. Most people can reach that conclusion pretty fast.

You can't prefer behavior over other behaviors as if people are choosing them...and if your preferences existed prior to the behavior.....then the idea that you hold any morals at all is just another illusion you're struggling to ignore.

Lewis is wrong. Very wrong in the example he gave.

Fun to say...hard to prove.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't wish to offend you, but I think you might be thinking about or referring to yourself here maybe?

I'm certainly not exempt from this view...but I haven't found anyone that doesn't fit neatly inside it either.

And are maybe projecting that onto others maybe? And if that's the case, then you have fallen far, (no offense).

Well they are either acting morally or not....according to what they say is moral.

It's got nothing to do with projection.

Consider a survey in a big city asking if people believe it's good and right to help the homeless. I would wager the overwhelming majority would agree this is true....especially if they're name goes on the survey.

Now consider how many times those same people walk right past a homeless person on the street begging for change. Hundreds of times? Thousands? Do they genuinely believe it's good to help the homeless and if so....why aren't they acting as if it's good?

But it is true that none of us can do enough to solve all problems, etc. Many of them are not solvable unless some people change, etc. Which is not up to us, but is entirely up to them, etc.

It's hard to argue with such a generalized answer but sure....none of us can do enough to solve all problems.

Look....I was talking about what is moral and good....you suddenly begin talking about "solving problems". These are two wildly different things. I don't have to solve poverty to be a good person if I think good people help those in poverty. I simply need to offer some help to those in poverty.

There's nothing complex or difficult about it.

You seem to be trying to justify your own lack of helping those in poverty by punting responsibility onto the government....which is weird.

The government has no obligation to help those in poverty. In fact, to my knowledge, no government has ever eliminated poverty.

There are groups of people whose politics tend to see the government as the answer to all problems....socialists, and fascists. I want to be clear....I'm speaking of fascists specifically as in mussolini's "everything for the state, nothing outside the state". And the sort of socialists who aren't as honest but see everything as "political" and the abolishing of anything "private" as both good and necessary.

Are you one of those types of people? Honest question....because our discussion took a very weird turn. I've noticed twice now that you seem to immediately associate what is morally good or bad with "the law" which if you genuinely believe, it's fine....but I'd rather you say it upfront than continue dancing around it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But he offers no mechanism for this whatsoever. Except that 'we' do it.

Agreed....are we requiring an explanation for "why everything happens"? I thought the point was an argument about free will.

There is no other 'Self' whether you capitalise it or not.

There's only the illusion of self....which precedes the illusions of free will and illusions of morality to the determinist.

Every aspect of what it means to be you is part of the antecedent conditions. You aren't separate from the process. You are part of the process. Do you wantto pull tne trigger? Break tbe glass? Help someone in trouble or and your interview? That's all part of the process. It's what you eventually decide that you prefer. And that has been determined. There's no little man in a room somewhere in the brain that is not part of the process. This view went out of fashion nearly 200 years ago.

The idea of free will never "went out of fashion". In fact, once everyone understands how pointless this argument is....it's the argument that went out of fashion. It went out of fashion when Hume made a rather solid logical argument against inductive logic/reasoning.

Free will doesn't go out of fashion...and is, and will remain the default belief, because everyone acts and speaks as if free will were true....and deterministic reality is false....even the determinists.

Whenever I consider two views of reality that have no evidence....whichever one seems to describe reality more accurately is the one I adopt....not the one you cannot hold as true even for yourself.

Nobody has said that decisions are only based on unconscious processes. This is a strawman.

The processes are unconscious. We only imagine ourselves conscious of the processes because of the illusion of consciousness (the number of illusions the determinist believes hold a powerful sway over our view of reality is huge).

You don't really have consciousness....or sentience for that matter....these are chemical and biological processes that create the pattern seeking grey matter in your skull to activate and create some attempt at understanding these processes we call conscious...it will pass eventually and you'll lose consciousness. A sharp or immediately powerful sensation of pain (for example) will momentarily eliminate all sense of self (if you don't believe this, you've never been hit extremely hard in the face) and while the illusion of self/consciousness will come rushing back almost immediately...there is that brief moment of only pain to remind you that it can all simply disappear.

It's repeated because there is no other explanation.

Free will is another explanation. You just don't believe in it.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah thats why I proposed, ' then you agree that there is no objective morality beyond human made determinations such as likes, dislikes, feelings and determinations ec

No, this is what you said:

...you agree there is an objective morality beyond human views and feelings.

That is wrong. Please correct it.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess I misspoke when I said it was fairly easy to understand.

I would have preferred to have one or more of the points I raised addressed. Especially the ones that are relevant to free will. Such as: Can you make a free will decision to love someone?

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm certainly not exempt from this view...but I haven't found anyone that doesn't fit neatly inside it either.




Well they are either acting morally or not....according to what they say is moral.

It's got nothing to do with projection.

Consider a survey in a big city asking if people believe it's good and right to help the homeless. I would wager the overwhelming majority would agree this is true....especially if they're name goes on the survey.

Now consider how many times those same people walk right past a homeless person on the street begging for change. Hundreds of times? Thousands? Do they genuinely believe it's good to help the homeless and if so....why aren't they acting as if it's good?



It's hard to argue with such a generalized answer but sure....none of us can do enough to solve all problems.

Look....I was talking about what is moral and good....you suddenly begin talking about "solving problems". These are two wildly different things. I don't have to solve poverty to be a good person if I think good people help those in poverty. I simply need to offer some help to those in poverty.

There's nothing complex or difficult about it.

You seem to be trying to justify your own lack of helping those in poverty by punting responsibility onto the government....which is weird.

The government has no obligation to help those in poverty. In fact, to my knowledge, no government has ever eliminated poverty.

There are groups of people whose politics tend to see the government as the answer to all problems....socialists, and fascists. I want to be clear....I'm speaking of fascists specifically as in mussolini's "everything for the state, nothing outside the state". And the sort of socialists who aren't as honest but see everything as "political" and the abolishing of anything "private" as both good and necessary.

Are you one of those types of people? Honest question....because our discussion took a very weird turn. I've noticed twice now that you seem to immediately associate what is morally good or bad with "the law" which if you genuinely believe, it's fine....but I'd rather you say it upfront than continue dancing around it.

I never once mentioned the government, and I was talking about individuals, etc.

And to my knowledge, I am not one of those kinds of people you are describing.

And I told you in some of my earlier posts how I try to help people sometimes.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

I would have preferred to have one or more of the points I raised addressed.

I did address your first point. I didn't have the time or desire to address all of them. I'll address another if you like.

Especially the ones that are relevant to free will. Such as: Can you make a free will decision to love someone?

The Lewis sentence you quoted needs the context of surrounding sentences. He's not making an argument for free will there. And he doesn't assume free will is a "God given certainty" as you say, since he begins the paragraph by saying it's probably the same in the universe.

The quote also needs the context of the Christian understanding of love. Bear in mind that Lewis also wrote a book called "The Four Loves" based on the fact that ancient Greeks had four words for love, whereas in English we only have one. We can say we love our children and we can say we love pizza, but these are obviously not the same kind of thing. And at the end of the paragraph he plainly says he's talking about the ability for man to love God, which he contrasts with romantic love.

But, if we want to make it about romantic love, let me ask you about a scenario, loosely based on the 1970's novel/film The Stepford Wives. Say you meet, fall in love and marry the most perfect woman you could have ever hoped to meet. She loves you completely and is perfect in every way. Your marriage brings you years and years of nothing but happiness and joy. Then one day, you discover she/it is a robot, programmed by a Japanese company to give you the illusion that it loves you. Would you feel any disappointment? Maybe disappointment isn't a strong enough word. Would your heart be broken and your world shattered? Might you realize that's there's a world of difference between freely giving love and software following a flowchart?

 

[Bradskii]

He's not making an argument for free will there.

No, he assumes it right out of the gate.

We can say we love our children and we can say we love pizza, but these are obviously not the same kind of thing.

He's talking about emotional love as well as emotions such as joy.

'...love or goodness or joy worth having.'

You can't make a conscious decision to feel love or joy.

Your marriage brings you years and years of nothing but happiness and joy. Then one day, you discover she/it is a robot, programmed by a Japanese company to give you the illusion that it loves you.

But that doesn't address the point being made. You had no free will in deciding to love the woman. And you had no free will in feeling betrayed when you found that the love wasn't reciprocated. None at all. None whatsoever.