Free will and determinism

[stevevw]

All you need is one example to prove me wrong. And I won't waste any more time responding until you either give me an example or back up any claims you want to make to libertarianism.

Let me ask you. Do you believe you have no free will. Not what you have read. But the reality or not of free will working in your life.

PS I already gave you an example. The fact that you make an exception for free will in being able to choose to believe there is no free will. If there is no free will then you have not freely chosen to believe there is no free will and therefore your position cannot be trusted.

 

[Chesterton]

You were talking about the choice to believe. It doesn't exist. You have a choice to accept or reject evidence.

Oi, now you're flat out contradicting yourself.

You say you can speak 6 languages and your evidence is a badly printed Certificate Of Language Excellence? I'll reject that. But the evidence is hearing you speak fluently with 6 different nationalities? I'll accept that. And automatically believe. I have no choice.

There could be other amounts of evidence in between the two examples you gave. Say you heard me speak three languages, then I had to suddenly leave because I remembered I was late for something.

But the fact that you acknowledge there are different amounts and qualities of evidence just shows that you know there are matters which you yourself have to judge, to weigh, to consider, in order to make a decision. That's how our legal systems operate when it comes to trials. The atoms don't do this for you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist

Us "tiny" beings (and I'm guessing that's compared to "you", right?)

Yes.

Anyway, us "tiny" beings aren't looking our noses down at anybody (but it is "you" who are right now doing that, etc)

Right.

But and/or anyway, we're just only trying to describe determinism to you in the most plain and simple ways we can think of, and/or can, or that are possible right now, etc, and you're clearly getting upset about it, etc.

Not.

These are simply bad arguments.

You want to start with a seemingly logical argument....a cause always proceeds an effect, right?

The inference from this is ridiculous....we cannot have free will.

As if free will choices cannot arrise from causes. Why not?

Go back to the two doors.

You can usually tell when someone is losing an argument, most especially with themselves, and even with themselves in their own mind, and is in a process of denial of facts,

What facts?

Let's be honest...when I ask you to go back to my two doors example....you'll be relying on facts? Fiction? Or will you avoid it entirely?

You'll either invent a fictional reason that you completely assume exists, without evidence or reason, or you'll admit you're wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If @FrumiousBandersnatch wants to reply to you about this, then I'll let him do it, for my knowledge is just basic in this compared to his, and he could probably do this part of it justice far better than I could, etc, because other than that, and for right now, I'm going to bed.

Take Care/God Bless/Goodnight.

This is a rather petty dodge....

If you can't explain these things it seems your certainty is unfounded.

Determinism is a great way to describe atoms (to a point) and a poor way to describe human behavior (which oddly, is exactly what we're trying to describe) when compared with free will (and I'm certain we already agree on this since you admitted that you are going to speak and act as if it's true).

Now, what was the argument being made for? The benefit of certain criminals?

If we're talking about criminals who behaved in an unthinking, unprovoked, or rash manner....sure, maybe. Perhaps that female cop who yelled "taser" before killing a young black man because she thought she was holding her taser and not her gun shouldn't be doing 15-20 years behind bars....she clearly didn't think about it, she was clearly reacting to a cause, and she clearly has reasons why she shot a man she intended to only stun (the shape of the taser having a similar handle to a gun, the adrenaline aka tunnel vision reaction to high stress situations).

Was that the sort of argument behind the whole thread? That most of these cops making split second decisions on limited info should be given mercy? Or was it more...."these people who clearly decided to loot this store did so for reasons far beyond their control"....type criminals that this argument was created for?

 

[Bradskii]

Let me ask you. Do you believe you have no free will. Not what you have read. But the reality or not of free will working in your life.

Yes.

PS I already gave you an example. The fact that you make an exception for free will in being able to choose to believe there is no free will. If there is no free will then you have not freely chosen to believe there is no free will and therefore your position cannot be trusted.

Good grief, man. I have just spent no little time in the last dozen or so posts explaining that you CAN'T CHOOSE TO BELIEVE.

 

[Bradskii]

Oi, now you're flat out contradicting yourself.

Not at all. The evidence is compelling. Or it's not. Or it's indeterminate. You make a decision as to whether you accept it or not. That's what we mean when we say that we choose. We decide to accept or reject.

But you can't choose to believe. Feel free to try it and let me know how you get on.

There could be other amounts of evidence in between the two examples you gave. Say you heard me speak three languages, then I had to suddenly leave because I remembered I was late for something.

But the fact that you acknowledge there are different amounts and qualities of evidence just shows that you know there are matters which you yourself have to judge, to weigh, to consider, in order to make a decision. That's how our legal systems operate when it comes to trials. The atoms don't do this for you.

Well, it's definitely me doing it. Weighing the evidence. Considering the variables. There's a process that runs through the options and selects some of them. Where do you think this happens? How do you think it happens?

 

[Chesterton]

Not at all. The evidence is compelling. Or it's not. Or it's indeterminate. You make a decision as to whether you accept it or not. That's what we mean when we say that we choose. We decide to accept or reject.

What's the difference between choosing and deciding?

But you can't choose to believe. Feel free to try it and let me know how you get on.

That's quite easy. I could choose to believe in mermaids if I wanted to. I could rationalize it - mermaids don't want to interact with humans and they're very good at hiding. Some people believe in space aliens. Some men believe they're women.

Well, it's definitely me doing it. Weighing the evidence. Considering the variables. There's a process that runs through the options and selects some of them. Where do you think this happens? How do you think it happens?

Again you contradict yourself. It's either you or a process. If it's a process, then you don't exist. You are an illusion to your self.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ana the Ist

Maybe you'll come to understand it and see it better more in time maybe, maybe when your own level of knowledge and understanding (and your intellectual honesty) grows up some more maybe? But as for right now, if @FrumiousBandersnatch doesnt think it is worth his time arguing it, citing that you're unlikely to change anyone's mind, then I'm beginning to wonder if I should consider it worth my time either, etc.

But I might come back to it later maybe, etc.

But for right now at least, I have better things to be doing with my time, etc.

Peace Out.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

What's the difference between choosing and deciding?

Nothing. But you can't choose to believe. You can't decide to believe.

That's quite easy. I could choose to believe in mermaids if I wanted to.

But you really don't. You believe they don't exist because you have decided to reject the evidence.

Some people believe in space aliens.

If they've accepted the evidence then they have no choice.

Again you contradict yourself. It's either you or a process. If it's a process, then you don't exist.

I am the process.

 

[stevevw]

Yes.

Good grief, man. I have just spent no little time in the last dozen or so posts explaining that you CAN'T CHOOSE TO BELIEVE.

Yes we cannot choose not to believe in free will. We act like we believe in it everyday when we hold people responsible or live out our own agency and self determination as humans. Just as Searle said despite knowing all the science that says we don't have free will we still believe in it.

So your choosing not to believe in free will with your rationalisations despite you acting like you believe in free will. So you just contradicted your own claim that we cannot choose our belief in free will by claiming you don't believe in it when your actions show you do believe in it.

Let me ask another question. What is the true indication of our beliefs, what we say or how we act in reality. If someone claims' "they don't believe they are in love' with someone but they act like they are in love with that someone. Which is the true measure of their belief.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes we cannot choose not to believe in free will. We act like we believe in it everyday when we hold people responsible or live out our own agency and self determination as humans. Just as Searle said despite knowing all the science that says we don't have free will we still believe in it.

So your choosing not to believe in free will with your rationalisations despite you acting like you believe in free will. So you just contradicted your own claim that we cannot choose our belief in free will by claiming you don't believe in it when your actions show you do believe in it.

I act as if the sun rises in the morning. I say that it rises. I point it out rising. But I know that it's an illusion. Same with free will.

And nothing really changes whether it exists or not. What would I do differently?

Let me ask another question. What is the true indication of our beliefs, what we say or how we act in reality. If someone claims' "they don't believe they are in love' with someone but they act like they are in love with that someone. Which is the true measure of their belief.

I'm not interested in how persuasive or even how deluded someone might be. It's an internal state. You believe X or you don't believe X.

And please don't hint at suggesting that I'm not being truthful again.

 

[stevevw]

I act as if the sun rises in the morning. I say that it rises. I point it out rising. But I know that it's an illusion. Same with free will.

Actually thats different. You can see the evidence that the earth actually goes around the sun. So your rationalisations cause you to not believe the sun rises even though it seems to behave that way. You actually don't believe the sun rises. If you truely did we can show your deluded.

But free will is different. According to determinist we have overwhelming evidence that there is no such thing as free will. Yet even the best scientists believe they have free will. It doesn't transfer to examples like the sun rising.

But thats the delusion determinist are trying to paint. That we believe in free will as an illsuion like how the sun appears to rise as an illsuion. There is something extra going on with free will besides some determiniistic mechanism that fools us into believing it.

Some say its because we live free will as a phenomenal experience. It happens to us just as free will is defined. We live the arguement for free will out so we are testing the assumption its real all the time. Thats the evidence.

But its different to the type of evidence in say refuting the sun rises which is objective. Free will like any consciousness is a lived experience. Its more a social phenomena than a physical mechanical one. A Mind phenomena rather than a neuron mechanism. This then adds another layer of evidence that confirms our assumption and that is the evidence that assures us and why we stubbonly persist in believing free will is real.

And nothing really changes whether it exists or not. What would I do differently?

Nothing. You would be forever locked in believing in free will no matter how much evidence is accumulated. The moment we stop believing is the moment we decend into chaos. Its like a law of nature.

I'm not interested in how persuasive or even how deluded someone might be. It's an internal state. You believe X or you don't believe X.

And please don't hint at suggesting that I'm not being truthful again.

I was merely stating a fact, a truth in itself that humans naturally believe in free will. We cannot help it because its so deeply ingrained down to the bone.

The moment we try to indoctrinate ourselves out of free will is when we begin to act immorally and lose ourselves as self determined beings. Which basically means we become the very deterministic robots determinists want to claim we are.

As Noam Chomsky, says:

We just can’t abandon believing it (free will); it’s our most immediate phenomenologically obvious impression, but we can’t explain it. […] If it’s something we know to be true and we don’t have any explanation for it, well, too bad for any explanatory possibilities.

So no amount of science, logic or rationalism will work to undermine our belief in free will. Why rationalise it away. Whats the point, it doesn't achieve anything but chaos.

Or is there some other reason, perhaps a philosophical and metaphysical one.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have a choice before me, and let's say it's a choice that I can take as much time as I like thinking about it before I choose, etc. Now from my perspective, it seems as if there are a ton of different things I could do (or not do) (or choose or not choose) regarding this choice, etc. But everything that is going on with me before I choose is all determined, etc. And whatever I choose in the end is still all always a result of deterministic processes in the end, etc. Which means I really didn't choose or make the choice, etc. But it was (or could have been) already all fully known by someone who knew or had a much, much higher knowledge about me, and a much, much higher knowledge of all the antecedent conditions surrounding me, and a much, much higher knowledge of all the deterministic processes happening or going on with me in theory, etc. So that in the end there was only one real way any of it could have ever happened or gone, etc, and none of it even had anything to do with me, etc. But without my knowing any of that or this, it always seems like there are a ton of different ways things can go, and that there are very, very many numerous and very, very different possibilities, etc. And really, without knowing or being able to predict or know the future either, really there even is from my perspective, etc, even if there is really not in reality, etc.

But it's not fatalism, and it's not like you give up thinking about your choices and/or choosings, and give up thinking about the possible outcomes or results of your choosings, and their possible repercussions or consequences, or maybe even possible benefits or positive outcomes also maybe, etc. Even with a knowing that this world and this universe is all deterministic, you still will do those things always, and you still will think about them always, and still will act as if what you will choose will have an effect on them either one way or another always, etc. Because from yours/my perspective they still do, or can, etc, even if it is already/has already been fully known/written/already decided for you in reality, and there was only ever one way it can ever happen or go in reality, etc.

For example, some people will say "why pray", or why try to do this or that good or positive thing for somebody, etc? And it all comes down to us not knowing the present or the future, etc. For example, like whether it was already part of the already determined plan/will for you to pray, etc, and then later on, whether it was already part of that already determined will/plan for what you did or said earlier when you prayed to have a positive outcome or effect or not on something or somebody, etc, because none of us knows that, etc.

It could be just as much equally a part of the already determined will/plan for you to act or do, or try to do or say something, just as much as it might be for you to not do or try to do or say a thing, etc, and that's what a bunch (a ton) of you are not fully understanding, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have a choice before me, and let's say it's a choice that I can take as much time as I like thinking about it before I choose, etc. Now from my perspective, it seems as if there are a ton of different things I could do (or not do) (or choose or not choose) regarding this choice, etc. But everything that is going on with me before I choose is all determined, etc. And whatever I choose in the end is still all always a result of deterministic processes in the end, etc. Which means I really didn't choose or make the choice, etc. But it was (or could have been) already all fully known by someone who knew or had a much, much higher knowledge about me, and a much, much higher knowledge of all the antecedent conditions surrounding me, and a much, much higher knowledge of all the deterministic processes happening or going on with me in theory, etc. So that in the end there was only one real way any of it could have ever happened or gone, etc, and none of it even had anything to do with me, etc. But without my knowing any of that or this, it always seems like there are a ton of different ways things can go, and that there are very, very many numerous and very, very possibilities, etc. And really, without knowing or being able to predict or know the future either, really there even is from my perspective, etc, even if there is really not in reality, etc.

But it's not fatalism, and it's not like you give up thinking about your choices and/or choosings, and think about the possible outcomes or results of your choosings, and their possible repercussions or consequences, or maybe even possible benefits or positive outcomes also maybe, etc. Even with a knowing that this world and this universe is all deterministic, you still will do those things always, and you still will think about them always, and still will act as if what you will choose will have an effect on them either one way or another always, etc. Because from yours/my perspective they still do, or can, etc, even if it is already/has already been fully known/written/already decided for you in reality, and there was only ever one way it can ever happen of go in reality, etc.

For example, some people will say "why pray", or why try to do this or that good or positive thing for somebody, etc? And it all comes down to us not knowing the present or the future, etc. For example, like whether it was already part of the already determined plan/will for you to pray, etc, and then later on, whether it was already part of that already determined will/plan for what you did or said earlier when you prayed to have a positive outcome or effect or not, etc, because none of us knows that, etc.

It could be just as much equally a part of the already determined will/plan for you to act or do, or try to do or say something, just as much as it might be for you to not do or try to do or say a thing, etc, and that's what a bunch (a ton) of you are not fully understanding, etc.

God Bless.

For example, with doing good, or trying to do or sow good things. Some in the light of realizing that this world is all deterministic will want to act like an infant, and give up, and say that they are just not going to ever try to do anything, etc. But that's not the right perspective or attitude to have. I already mentioned that you don't know whether it's meant for you to this thing, or else not do this (or such and such) a thing, etc, and that it could be just as much equally in the determinism cards/will/plan for you to do or try to do a thing, as it is for you to not do or not try to do a thing, etc. So with trying to do or sow good, while you will probably have many more failures than successes, you still should try to do or sow good things, etc. If you give up, you're still an infant, and you haven't learned anything. The few times where it will be in the determinism cards for it to succeed, will make all the times where it wasn't in the determinism cards for it to succeed more than worth the times when it didn't seem to succeed, etc.

Anyway, that's all I have for now.

God Bless.

Oh, and learn and try to gain from the times when it doesn't succeed.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

This then adds another layer of evidence that confirms our assumption.

Gimme a break. You gave offered zero evidence.

The moment we stop believing is the moment we decend into chaos. Its like a law of nature.

So what changes. Give me an example.

The moment we try to indoctrinate ourselves out of free will is when we begin to act immorally...

Then give me an example.

We just can’t abandon believing it (free will); it’s our most immediate phenomenologically obvious impression, but we can’t explain it.

Well, he's right about that. You haven't even made the attempt.

 

[stevevw]

Gimme a break. You gave offered zero evidence.

Of course we do. We have 1st hand evidence. We are the direct witnesses to free will working in our lives, others and in society as a whole. There is no better proof.

So what changes. Give me an example.
Then give me an example.

Several studies have been done where students or people were indoctrinated to think there was no free will. The result was they tended to cheat more or not care about responsibility as much. But it may also lower self esteem and happiness.

In the lab, using deterministic arguments to undermine people’s belief in free will has led to a number of negative outcomes including increased cheating and aggression. It has also been linked to a reduction in helping behaviours and lowered feelings of gratitude.

Some studies have shown that people who believe in free will are more likely to have positive life outcomes – such as happiness, academic success and better work performance .
The psychology of believing in free will

Well, he's right about that. You haven't even made the attempt.

Do you understand what he is saying when "well, too bad for any explanatory possibilities"

Chomsky's saying forget about the rationalists explanations. It doesn't matter. The belief in free will is here to stay. You can't get rid of it so your explanations are useless.

When he says "we cannot abandon believing in free will; it’s our most immediate phenomenologically obvious impression" he means that theres good reasons why we believe in free will because its obvious to us like its obvious that theres a computer in front of your. Like its obvious your having a 'red' experience.

So despite the experience of free will not being measurable in material and mechanical terms as being real its measurable through our phenomenalogical experience of it like a red experience. For which we believe is also real but this cannot be explained in physical and mechanistic reductionism.

 

[Bradskii]

...this cannot be explained in physical and mechanistic reductionism.

It is. And you have not offered a single argument against it.

 

[Chesterton]

Nothing. But you can't choose to believe. You can't decide to believe.

You and the other fellow making the same bald assertion over and over only makes your position sound weak.

But you really don't. You believe they don't exist because you have decided to reject the evidence.

Right, I've chosen to reject.

If they've accepted the evidence then they have no choice.

Once they've decided to accept the evidence, they can't change their mind?

I am the process.

That sounds a bit woo-ish. Define "I". What is "I"? I don't ask "who is I" because obviously a process can't be a person.

 

[Bradskii]

You and the other fellow making the same bald assertion over and over only makes your position sound weak.

If you keep denying it I can only repeat my position.

Right, I've chosen to reject.

So you therefore don't believe. There's no choice.

Once they've decided to accept the evidence, they can't change their mind?

If they receive and accept new information.

That sounds a bit woo-ish. Define "I". What is "I"? I don't ask "who is I" because obviously a process can't be a person.

It's the sum total of everything that makes me the person I am. Literally everything. My biology, my memories, my senses...everything.

It's like asking 'what is life?'. It's not some thing. It's a collection of attributes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist

Maybe you'll come to understand it and see it better more in time maybe,

What part do you think I don't understand?

I understand determinism well enough to predict the answers you initially replied to me back when you began replying to my posts lol.

It's an old argument, you've brought nothing new to it, and pretending you're correct when unable to answer simple questions isn't very convincing

maybe when your own level of knowledge and understanding (and your intellectual honesty) grows up some more maybe?

Do you think intellectual snobbery helps your argument here?

It's a real simple question, why can't free will choices arise from causes?

@FrumiousBandersnatch doesnt think it is worth his time arguing it, citing that you're unlikely to change anyone's mind, then I'm beginning to wonder if I should consider it worth my time either, etc.

More intellectual snobbery.

I don't just consider it a sign I'm winning an argument when my opposition is insulting, but also when they retreat to their self satisfying thought bubbles to hide and comfort each other.

But for right now at least, I have better things to be doing with my time, etc.

Sure sounds like a choice to me.