Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

4 Different individuals IDENTIFY different previous events that are meaningful
to them, or not meaningful to them, when they are making decisions...

5 Orthodox Christians OUGHT TO identify certain previous events that have
happened in their life, which SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN
THEY MAKE CURRENT DECISIONS...

I've no problem with that. Some things are important to us. Some things are not. We make our decisions based on what we consider to be important. So if you have been persuaded by a particular argument then you will grant it more weight compared to an argument that did not persuade you. And you cannot choose to be persuaded.

I think that you need to deal with the problem of how our choices, create
preferences, and how our preferences then affect whether we seek truth,
or avoid truth, or honestly recognize truth when we encounter it.

You have it somewhat backwards. Our choices do not determine our preferences. You can't choose what you prefer. Our preferences determine our decisions. Whatever you do is literally what you preferred to do at the time you did it. It's why you chose it.

And don't confuse what you want to do with what you prefer. For example, what time did you get up this morning? Early to get to work in time? Well, I'll bet you would have wanted to lie in bed for a while, like you might do when you're not working. But your preference was to make sure that you weren't late. You wanted to stay in bed, but you preferred to get up. And your preference was determined by any number of factors.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So if you have been persuaded by a particular argument then you will grant it more weight compared to an argument that did not persuade you. And you cannot choose to be persuaded.

You must never have been a teenager who did something they knew was stupid and foolish but did it anyway because of their peers.

You can certainly choose to be persuaded...perhaps not into belief, but certainly into action.

 

[Jerry N.]

Similar discussions have been in other threads. I don’t see why free will and determinism can’t exist simultaneously. I understand the butterfly effect and similar ideas, but I don’t believe them. There is probably amplification or muting of “choices.” Whether or not I have chicken or beef for diner may be influenced by several factors, but the choice has no cosmic results. However, I’m limited on my diner choices by many things: cost, availability, and what I had yesterday. If I chose chicken, it is a mix of determinism and free will. Even if we were capable of knowing all of the factors, changes in the timeline of life can take place, because the number of future possibilities is large, even if the bulk of the future is determined. Chicken or beef may have no influence on the car accident I may have tomorrow because the brakes on my car are bad.

 

[Bradskii]

Similar discussions have been in other threads. I don’t see why free will and determinism can’t exist simultaneously. I understand the butterfly effect and similar ideas, but I don’t believe them.

But that is actually determinism. Taken to the nth degree by suggesting that small, seemingly insignificant events van have fat reaching effects that are impossible to predict. For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost. Then the horse, the fight, the battle, the war and the empire.

There is probably amplification or muting of “choices.” Whether or not I have chicken or beef for diner may be influenced by several factors, but the choice has no cosmic results. However, I’m limited on my diner choices by many things: cost, availability, and what I had yesterday. If I chose chicken, it is a mix of determinism and free will.

There are practically an infinite number of antecedent conditions which are all beyond your control. So where does free will come into the equation?

Even if we were capable of knowing all of the factors, changes in the timeline of life can take place, because the number of future possibilities is large, even if the bulk of the future is determined. Chicken or beef may have no influence on the car accident I may have tomorrow because the brakes on my car are bad.

It's either determined, or it's random. There aren't any other options. If it's random, then free will doesn't live there. Likewise if it's determined. If something goes wrong with your brakes then there's not even a choice involved there, let alone a free will one.

 

[Fervent]

It either exists or it doesn't. Wanting or not wanting it doesn't change that.

Wanting or not wanting doesn't change the objective reality, but it is significant to the discussion. Why? Because if I want free will to exist, then that's enough for me to believe it exists since if it doesn't exist then my acceptance or non-acceptance of it is determined by things other than my choice to believe in it or reject it. I don't need to give an account of how its possible or any sort of explanation of it, because if I have truly made a choice to believe in it then it exists. So if I have the power to choose, my desire is sufficient for me to choose free will. And if I don't have the power to choose, then whatever it is that has determined what it is that I will believe has determined that I will believe in free will.

Which is the problem for the rejection of free will, because whatever you try to justify that rejection on is irrelevant to your rejection. So the only reason you accept the claims of science is because it has been determined that you would accept the claims of science prior to you accepting the claims of science.

If free will does not exist, then human reason is an illusion because whatever the ultimate deteminizer in the deterministic system is the only relevant factor to what we believe or don't believe. This is particularly problematic if we mean the universe is deterministic in a way such as Laplace's demon is possible where an observer with perfect knowledge of the starting conditions could predict perfectly the exact behavior of the system for any given future moment since this would mean that the only way a being in such a universe would believe such a thing is if somehow the initial conditions of the universe inevitably lead to such a belief arising. So in a deterministic universe we would have to explain how something appearing reason that is possible of arriving at a true conclusion about the reality of that universe could be an inevitability without such a thing being a result of some sort of intention or design. If determinism is true and true knowledge exists, that is to say that within the deterministic system true knowledge must inevitably exist on the basis of its initial conditions then it boggles the mind to think that such a thing is undirected or accidental(for lack of a better word). Even more so if we consider whether the particular instance such a convergence occurred is within our own beliefs and understandings. So what makes you think that your beliefs are true if they are dependent on the prior arrangement of the universe? That is to say if they are not the result of you evaluating them and determining that they are in some way likely to be true, but instead were determined by events prior to your birth?

 

[zelosravioli]

I DONT Have freeWIll - and Ive made up my mind about it!

 

[Bradskii]

I DONT Have freeWIll - and Ive made up my mind about it!

Then lucky that it's absence doesn't stop you making decisions.

 

[Aaron112]

Then lucky that it's absence doesn't stop you making decisions.

Based on their own words in their own post(s) I just read a bit, I don't think they are allowed to make decisions on most things, nor anything important. They don't have free will, just like they posted. They are subjects of a system and are required to do what they are taught / told.

 

[Aaron112]

Chicken or beef may have no influence on the car accident I may have tomorrow because the brakes on my car are bad.

Someone with or without free will dutifully reported that to the insurance league.

 

[Bradskii]

Based on their own words in their own post(s) I just read a bit, I don't think they are allowed to make decisions on most things, nor anything important. They don't have free will, just like they posted. They are subjects of a system and are required to do what they are taught / told.

People will always have options. But they will always decide to do what they prefer.

 

[Aaron112]

So they have free will/ options/ to continue living in sin unrepentant, unforgiven ?

 

[Bradskii]

So they have free will/ options/ to continue living in sin unrepentant, unforgiven ?

What someone decides to do is what they prefer to do at that time whether you or they consider it to be sinful or not.

If they know they are doing wrong they'll have the option to repent. Again, they will do what they prefer.

If you think you could forgive them then you'll have that option. What you prefer to do will be determined by any number of things.

 

[Jerry N.]

But that is actually determinism. Taken to the nth degree by suggesting that small, seemingly insignificant events van have fat reaching effects that are impossible to predict. For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost. Then the horse, the fight, the battle, the war and the empire.

There are practically an infinite number of antecedent conditions which are all beyond your control. So where does free will come into the equation?

It's either determined, or it's random. There aren't any other options. If it's random, then free will doesn't live there. Likewise if it's determined. If something goes wrong with your brakes then there's not even a choice involved there, let alone a free will one.

I didn’t write that post very well. My health isn’t what it should be. From an Atheist point of view, everything you wrote is correct. If God exist, then free will is a necessity. However, I was trying to say that both determinism and free will can exist at the same time. Determinism can limit our choices, but it is not absolute. If you remove the divine out of the equation, then random events have to take place for our choices to be free will. An “infinite number of antecedent conditions” is a reasonable philosophical assumption and has been discussed by many smarter than me. It assumes there is a cause and effect to all things, but things like atomic physics seem to indicate that randomness could be part to the fabric of the universe. Evolution even seems to depend on it to explain things.

The brake problem was meant to be an example of determinism and the chicken or beef problem was meant to illustrate limited free will. Our lack of knowledge is a convenient way to support determinism, but it is not practical. We have to operate assuming free will, so why can’t we consider the possibility that it exist with or without God?

 

[Bradskii]

I didn’t write that post very well. My health isn’t what it should be.

My condolences. I hope you're feeling better.

From an Atheist point of view, everything you wrote is correct. If God exist, then free will is a necessity.

And I have to be careful here. It's not an argument that I'm making: Free will doesn't exist, therefore neither does God.

However, I was trying to say that both determinism and free will can exist at the same time. Determinism can limit our choices, but it is not absolute. If you remove the divine out of the equation, then random events have to take place for our choices to be free will. An “infinite number of antecedent conditions” is a reasonable philosophical assumption and has been discussed by many smarter than me. It assumes there is a cause and effect to all things, but things like atomic physics seem to indicate that randomness could be part to the fabric of the universe. Evolution even seems to depend on it to explain things.

I'm excluding the big bang on the basis that firstly we don't know if it had a cause and secondly, when we're talking about determinism affecting free will, we are talking about us. Here and now. Within the universe. So even if, for the sake of the discussion we agree that there was no initial cause, that doesn't mean that cause and effect aren't valid here and now. And have been for the last few billion years. And anything down at the quantum level has also been excluded because the argument using quantum effects propose that it's random - and free will cannot live in a random universe. And that it happens at such a low level of reality that by the time the effects have bubbled up to the macro world (atoms, molecules, chemical reactions etc) it's all deterministic (plus there's nobody on this forum that really understands it anyway).

So the proposal is that the universe is determined. And I have literally lost count of the number of times in this thread when I have asked for an example of when that hasn't been the case. With no examples forthcoming, the proposal stands.

The brake problem was meant to be an example of determinism and the chicken or beef problem was meant to illustrate limited free will.

The first is a good example. But was the second a free will decision in the sense that we're discussing? Or was it simply a random decision? A mental coin toss? Or was there a reason for the choice. You can't have a reason to do something without that reason being caused by something (else it was random). And if it was caused, then that cause determined the decision.

Our lack of knowledge is a convenient way to support determinism, but it is not practical. We have to operate assuming free will, so why can’t we consider the possibility that it exist with or without God?

We do work on the assumption that we have free will. It's exceptionally difficult to make your way through the day without the almost undeniable feeling that we are completely in control. But that's a very poor argument in support of it. And to be truthful, there's not much that changes if you do come to realise that we don't have it.

 

[Jerry N.]

My condolences. I hope you're feeling better.

Thank you. I'm just more tied today than usual, but my health is better than yesterday.

And I have to be careful here. It's not an argument that I'm making: Free will doesn't exist, therefore neither does God.

The problem here, as we have discussed before, is that the lack of free will would mean that we can't do things we should feel guilt about afterward. I don't know you, but I hope that there are things you have done in your life that you felt guilt about.

I'm excluding the big bang on the basis that firstly we don't know if it had a cause and secondly, when we're talking about determinism affecting free will, we are talking about us. Here and now. Within the universe. So even if, for the sake of the discussion we agree that there was no initial cause, that doesn't mean that cause and effect aren't valid here and now. And have been for the last few billion years. And anything down at the quantum level has also been excluded because the argument using quantum effects propose that it's random - and free will cannot live in a random universe. And that it happens at such a low level of reality that by the time the effects have bubbled up to the macro world (atoms, molecules, chemical reactions etc) it's all deterministic (plus there's nobody on this forum that really understands it anyway).

I wasn't actually thinking about the big bang, but it is a good example. I was actually thinking about atomic orbitals, where probabilities are used. It was just an example of something that is somewhat random already in the universe. I was proposing that random events could also take place on the macro scale. Atomic orbitals are a good example of constrained randomness.

So the proposal is that the universe is determined. And I have literally lost count of the number of times in this thread when I have asked for an example of when that hasn't been the case. With no examples forthcoming, the proposal stands.

The examples I gave before that you rejected are choosing who we love and how we love. However, the creation of beauty and ugliness in art and appreciating natural beauty could also be good examples of things that are a mix of determinism and free will.

The first is a good example. But was the second a free will decision in the sense that we're discussing? Or was it simply a random decision? A mental coin toss? Or was there a reason for the choice. You can't have a reason to do something without that reason being caused by something (else it was random). And if it was caused, then that cause determined the decision.

For the sake of discussion, I would say a mental coin toss is closer. There might be only two meats in the refrigerator.

We do work on the assumption that we have free will. It's exceptionally difficult to make your way through the day without the almost undeniable feeling that we are completely in control. But that's a very poor argument in support of it. And to be truthful, there's not much that changes if you do come to realise that we don't have it.

We can never be completely in control, but we have limited choices to make.

 

[Bradskii]

The problem here, as we have discussed before, is that the lack of free will would mean that we can't do things we should feel guilt about afterward. I don't know you, but I hope that there are things you have done in your life that you felt guilt about.

I don't see a problem there. I might go to the the pub rather than the gym because it's both what I want to do and what I prefer to do at that that time, for whatever reason convinced me. And I might later feel guilty about in retrospect because I am then convinced it was the wrong decision. And note that I didn't say 'I decided' but rather 'I am then convinced'. The conditions determine whether we are convinced about something, and we then assume that it was us making the decision. Strictly speaking...we did. But it was the conditions, over which we had no control, that dictated the decision.

Let's say that we ask an AI programme to 'decide' which course of action you should take. You input all the information that you have available and suggest 3 options. The programe will decide which is the best option. It will tell you which it 'prefers'. It has no control over the input. And it will give you exactly the same output every time. If you were to make the decision, then you have no control over the input. Why would you make a different decision if you were asked a second time? Nothing changed so there's nothing to cause a change.

I wasn't actually thinking about the big bang, but it is a good example. I was actually thinking about atomic orbitals, where probabilities are used. It was just an example of something that is somewhat random already in the universe. I was proposing that random events could also take place on the macro scale. Atomic orbitals are a good example of constrained randomness.

If it's random then there's no free will involved. You can't say it was a free will decision to have the chicken if you spun a coin.

The examples I gave before that you rejected are choosing who we love and how we love. However, the creation of beauty and ugliness in art and appreciating natural beauty could also be good examples of things that are a mix of determinism and free will.

You can't choose who, or what you love. You can't pick a random person and say 'I will love her'. You can't pick a random piece of music and say 'I am going to decide to enjoy this'.

For the sake of discussion, I would say a mental coin toss is closer. There might be only two meats in the refrigerator.

Then no free will. If it wasn't a coin toss then something determined your choice.

We can never be completely in control, but we have limited choices to make.

Making a choice doesn't doesn't prove there is free will. The AI programme made a choice. What you choose and what it chooses are determined by antecedent conditions. There's no way around this.

 

[Aaron112]

Even if someone avoids this thread, topic, and forum, to avoid the confusion,
they may still be unhealthily affected by the many who have been confused.

 

[Jerry N.]

I don't see a problem there. I might go to the the pub rather than the gym because it's both what I want to do and what I prefer to do at that that time, for whatever reason convinced me. And I might later feel guilty about in retrospect because I am then convinced it was the wrong decision. And note that I didn't say 'I decided' but rather 'I am then convinced'. The conditions determine whether we are convinced about something, and we then assume that it was us making the decision. Strictly speaking...we did. But it was the conditions, over which we had no control, that dictated the decision.

Let's say that we ask an AI programme to 'decide' which course of action you should take. You input all the information that you have available and suggest 3 options. The programe will decide which is the best option. It will tell you which it 'prefers'. It has no control over the input. And it will give you exactly the same output every time. If you were to make the decision, then you have no control over the input. Why would you make a different decision if you were asked a second time? Nothing changed so there's nothing to cause a change.

I'll leave it at that. We obviously have different ideas about guilt.

If it's random then there's no free will involved. You can't say it was a free will decision to have the chicken if you spun a coin.

You can't choose who, or what you love. You can't pick a random person and say 'I will love her'. You can't pick a random piece of music and say 'I am going to decide to enjoy this'.

Then no free will. If it wasn't a coin toss then something determined your choice.

Making a choice doesn't doesn't prove there is free will. The AI programme made a choice. What you choose and what it chooses are determined by antecedent conditions. There's no way around this.

I was trying to make comparison of random events in nature and free will in humans. You can have a determined outcome in nature with random events. I believe our lives have predetermined trajectories with options within those trajectories. I don't think we will find agreement, so I'll just wish you a Merry Christmas.

 

[Fervent]

We do work on the assumption that we have free will. It's exceptionally difficult to make your way through the day without the almost undeniable feeling that we are completely in control. But that's a very poor argument in support of it. And to be truthful, there's not much that changes if you do come to realise that we don't have it.

Is it really though? If we can't trust our experience on such a basic level, then how can we trust our experience when it reports sense-data to us? If we can't trust our experiences, then it's pointless to talk about empirical justification. Because our experiences aren't trustworthy, so anything we conclude from them is untrustworthy. So when do our experiences become trustworthy?

 

[Aaron112]

As the Creator still confirms: Lean not on your own (human) understanding; learn to totally trust Jesus in all things for He Alone is Trustworthy in all we experience today.

Is it really though? If we can't trust our experience on such a basic level, then how can we trust our experience when it reports sense-data to us? If we can't trust our experiences, then it's pointless to talk about empirical justification. Because our experiences aren't trustworthy, so anything we conclude from them is untrustworthy. So when do our experiences become trustworthy?

They do not become trustworthy in the world/ flesh/ carnal experiences. Church history, government history, science history (and present) , financial instruments and institutions, and so on are all problematic and cannot be built upon nor trusted.