Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

Cause and effect on a temporal timeline is ok, I don't deny it. But I don't think it depends on temporal sequence.

Then you aren't a determinist.

Yes, as far as I know, all effects are also causes, and all causes are effects of [antecedent] causes,

Right so if this very moment is the effect (now) then every preceding moment is simply a cause. In sequence it goes....

Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause,.....

Until we reach right now (effect) which is already a cause by the time you read this. It's a useful distinction for referring to memories and explaining physics but not human behavior in general.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Cause and effect on a temporal timeline is ok, I don't deny it. But I don't think it depends on temporal sequence. But that's another argument.

Yes, as far as I know, all effects are also causes, and all causes are effects of [antecedent] causes, except First Cause. It may be provable that within 'temporal reality' --whatever that is-- the very last effects are not yet causes, but 'so far' I disagree with that.

Let me put it this way....

A friend or loved one comes to you seeking advice. She's been making decisions that haven't been turning out well for her and she's asking for help.

Would you....

1. Explain that she shouldn't be so concerned, her choices are illusions, and as everything is merely a chain of causal events, there's no meaning, moral, or value which can be considered rational.

Or...

2. Treat her as a free will agent, try to understand her reasoning, and see if you can find some sort of perceptual patterns that she's stuck in before trying to explain a way out of that pattern of behavior?

One of these descriptions of human behavior seems very useful and also....accurate....the other, devoid of anything other than mechanistic cause and effect.

 

[Fervent]

That neatly sums up the position of a lot of people in this thread. Rather than make any attempt to try to show how free will operates in a way that is not determined by antecedent conditions, they simply disregard the problem. As you are doing.

I don't disregard the problem, I disregard your "solution" to the problem. Of course, my solution to the problem would likely be objectionable to you.

I started this thread to see if there were any good arguments that I hadn't come across before. I was hoping that someone would make the attempt to explain free will in the absence of determinism. After over 2,700 posts and some people posting dozens of times, no-one has made the slightest attempt.

Seems to me that if we must say one is illusion, it's determinism that would be the lower priority commitment. Free will we experience directly, we make choices and go down paths we choose. We notice when it is something else compelling us, just ask any addict why they don't just quit the drugs that are destroying them. Free will is basic. determinism is indirectly inferred and reasoned about. Seems to me if one of them must get the boot, it's determinism. So how do we rectify a causally ordered universe without determinism? Am I alone in recognizing the 500 pound gorilla behind the curtain?

That's quite a disappointment. And so very telling.

How can it be disappointing? Don't you beliieve that we're just running scripts?

 

[Joseph G]

Predetermination/predestination/foreknowledge and free will... all true. God is sovereign!

Psalm 41:9 NKJV
"Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

John 6:70 NIV
"Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”

John 13:18 NIV
“I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’"

Luke 22:3-4 NIV
"Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus."

John 13:27 NIV
"As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

John 17:12 NIV
"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled."

John 10:17-18 NIV
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

Acts 2:23-28 NIV
"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:

"‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest in hope, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay."

"You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Or we could describe it as the effect of something....because there's a near total overlap of the concepts of cause and effect. You would need to know every possible cause to understand every possible effect. Can you know every possible cause? Absolutely not. Whatever you don't know you don't know.

Of course. I'm wondering how that changes anything I have said.

So we can drop all discussion of cause and effect and simply say that it appears people make free will choices. They choose to do things for various reasons....many they do not even prefer or actively dislike or detest.

Of course that's what it looks like. So much so that people of all sorts think in those terms.

But at the moment of decision, the person always chooses what he prefers most, if only preferred for that moment of decision, for whatever reasons.

That's free will. It is a pointless exercise to hope to understand every underlying cause.

Why must one understand every underlying cause, and how does what @Bradskii says (or I say) reduce to that? I doubt he would claim that free will is much more than appearance, as you seem to be agreeing above.

If you're allowing for uncaused events....then I certainly don't have to describe free will in cause and effect terms.

No plural events. In fact, the only uncaused thing possible, as far as I can see, is not even an event. But a cause nevertheless, that caused the first event. But, if you wish to think there are multiple uncaused events, I don't mind. You are in good company, even among Christians, it appears, self-contradictory though the notion is. BTW, for what it is worth, I don't represent Bradskii on that. He will have his own opinions.

No...it's not...logic has gaping holes and paradoxes. You don't know what you're saying.

I didn't say OUR logic. I agree our thinking has holes --mine included

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then you aren't a determinist.

How not? I do believe in the absolute prevalence of cause-and-effect. There can be only one uncaused cause. Everything else is effect, that, as far as I know, is also cause. And no effect is uncaused.

Right so if this very moment is the effect (now) then every preceding moment is simply a cause. In sequence it goes....

Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, Cause, cause, cause, cause, cause,.....

Quite, if all we are discussing is what causes this moment's effect(s).

Until we reach right now (effect) which is already a cause by the time you read this. It's a useful distinction for referring to memories and explaining physics but not human behavior in general.

Were we discussing human behavior? I thought we were discussing choice.

As to the behavior thing, it is curious that one famous psychologist decries the common mentality that departs from causation. Let me try to find her name. Maybe Samantha Choi? I don't remember. But that's a ways off-topic.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't disregard the problem...

Yes, you are. All you have ever said is variations on 'Oh, but we do have free will. It's obvious'. There's been zero attempt to explain how it works in the absence of determinism. Not even a hint of an attempt.

 

[Fervent]

How not? I do believe in the absolute prevalence of cause-and-effect. There can be only one uncaused cause. Everything else is effect, that, as far as I know, is also cause. And no effect is uncaused.

You don't believe what you're saying, otherwise you wouldn't bother trying to argue...because if what you are saying is true, there's no point to argue because the beliefs involved were set prior to your birth. It's impossible to behave as if free will is simply an appearance, so why would you insist upon such a thing rather than taking what you see of it at face value? What is the point of insisting something is true that is impossible to liive consistent with such a belief?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course. I'm wondering how that changes anything I have said.

It points to the relative lack of substance to the deterministic position.

Of course that's what it looks like. So much so that people of all sorts think in those terms.

Not about human behavior. We are not entirely rational.

But at the moment of decision, the person always chooses what he prefers most

That's silly. It suggests you've never chosen not to do something you wanted to do.

Why must one understand every underlying cause

Because it's a "cause of the gaps" argument if you don't. Why should I believe these causes exist for every unique and distinct outcome?

No plural events. In fact, the only uncaused thing possible *snip*

You're getting too wrapped up in a meaningless distinction between cause and effect despite admitting they're basically the same thing.

I didn't say OUR logic. I agree our thinking has holes --mine included

I don't know who else's logic you would hope to use.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, you are. All you have ever said is variations on 'Oh, but we do have free will. It's obvious'. There's been zero attempt to explain how it works in the absence of determinism. Not even a hint of an attempt.

Experience precedes arguments and reason. I don't need to be able to explain how free wiil operates to accept it as a genuine phenomenon, any more than I have to be able to explain eyesight in order to accept what I see as generally reliiable. I disregard your "solution" because it's self-refuting and absurd on its face. Deterministic models failiing to capture and explain a genuine phenomenon isn't a problem for those who accept free will as genuine, it's a problem for the model whch could very well be the falsifying case. I've got all the explanation I need because I can just shrug my shoulders and say "God did it, I don't need to understand it" and leave it at that. I know that there is a general pattern of physical determination, but I also know that I am in some manner a free will agent.

Would you consider iit a problem that a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole and deny that square pegs exist because they don't fit in round holes?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, you are.

Why would you believe that he is in any way capable of "regarding" the problem?

Aren't you claiming to believe he has absolutely no control over his answers?

Awfully judgemental for a determinist.

 

[Bradskii]

Experience precedes arguments and reason. I don't need to be able to explain how free wiil operates to accept it as a genuine phenomenon, any more than I have to be able to explain eyesight in order to accept what I see as generally reliiable.

But you can explain eyesight. Sometimes what you see is not what you thought it was. And explaining eyesight - the actual mechanism and how it operates is relatively straight forward. How the brain interprets what you see is can also be explained. So we can explain to people that what they are experiencing is not necessarily what they think it is. And you can use that explanation to let them know that their eyesight is sometimes very unreliable indeed.

So now you can explain how free will operates in the absence of anything deterministic. I say that it can't, for frequently given reasons. You say that it can. So explain it. Is it too difficult? Just say so if it is. Do you not know? Then let me know that you don't. Is it too confusing? Then say so. But for heaven's sake, make some sort of an attempt to explain how something that is so obvious to you actually works.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How not? I do believe in the absolute prevalence of cause-and-effect.

I don't know what the absolute "prevalence of cause and effect" means.

If you think you can explain....please do.

Quite, if all we are discussing is what causes this moment's effect(s).

Determinism is ultimately a description human behavior....nothing more.

Were we discussing human behavior? I thought we were discussing choice.

That's certainly a part of human behavior isn't it? Determinists claim that people don't make choices.

But that's a ways off-topic.

It should be. Because then I'll ask if you can use your senses while thinking rationally and ask how you would hope to disentangle which one is going to ultimately cause behavior?

 

[Fervent]

But you can explain eyesight. Sometimes what you see is not what you thought it was. And explaining eyesight - the actual mechanism and how it operates is relatively straight forward. How the brain interprets what you see is can also be explained. So we can explain to people that what they are experiencing is not necessarily what they think it is. And you can use that explanation to let them know that their eyesight is sometimes very unreliable indeed.

All of that superfluousness and completely missing the point. Impressive.

So now you can explain how free will operates in the absence of anything deterministic. I say that it can't, for frequently given reasons. You say that it can. So explain it. Is it too difficult? Just say so if it is. Do you not know? Then let me know that you don't. Is it too confusing? Then say so. But for heaven's sake, make some sort of an attempt to explain how something that is so obvious to you actually works.

Why would I need to explain how it operates to trust that I am exercising it? Whether I can explain eyesight or not I can recognize that I can see because I see things. It's rather odd to demand explanation of how it operates when I can just observe myself making choices. Seems more probable to me that solipsism is true than free will is an illusion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But you can explain eyesight. Sometimes what you see is not what you thought it was. And explaining eyesight - the actual mechanism and how it operates is relatively straight forward. How the brain interprets what you see is can also be explained. So we can explain to people that what they are experiencing is not necessarily what they think it is. And you can use that explanation to let them know that their eyesight is sometimes very unreliable indeed.

Not only can I see through my eyes....but I can picture something entirely different in my mind. It's a pointless endeavor to hope to figure out which is causing behavior.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But you can explain eyesight.

Explain eyesight.

Optical Inversion

Optical Inversion: When we look at the world around us, we must remember that the veil of human perception means things are not always what they seem. When you glance at an object, the image received actually appears inverted on the retina.

alrasub.com

Just go ahead and clear up why we see everything upside down and our brains automatically invert the image.

Don't tell me the image just goes to our brain and our brains spit out the inverted image. Give me every cause determinist. Otherwise, it looks like our brains are capable of doing things we can't fully explain through processes we can't fully describe.

Leaves a lot of room for free will.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't disregard the problem, I disregard your "solution" to the problem. Of course, my solution to the problem would likely be objectionable to you.

Seems to me that if we must say one is illusion, it's determinism that would be the lower priority commitment. Free will we experience directly, we make choices and go down paths we choose. We notice when it is something else compelling us, just ask any addict why they don't just quit the drugs that are destroying them. Free will is basic. determinism is indirectly inferred and reasoned about. Seems to me if one of them must get the boot, it's determinism. So how do we rectify a causally ordered universe without determinism? Am I alone in recognizing the 500 pound gorilla behind the curtain?

How can it be disappointing? Don't you beliieve that we're just running scripts?

That judgemental language really pops out once you understand that he's claiming we shouldn't judge people because they don't choose.

Never been determinist who acted like he believes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So now you can explain how free will operates in the absence of anything deterministic.

What does this mean?

Why would we need to explain human behavior in the absence of gravity or something unrelated?

I say that it can't, for frequently given reasons.

What reasons? You haven't given reasons and axiomatic unfalsifiable claims aren't reasons....they're assumptions.

Then let me know that you don't. Is it too confusing? Then say so. But for heaven's sake, make some sort of an attempt to explain how something that is so obvious to you actually works.

Why would anyone who believes in free will need to explain "how it works" if you can't explain how determinism works. Find the cause for any human behavior....find a way to rule out the infinite set of possible causes.

 

[Bradskii]

Why would I need to explain how it operates to trust that I am exercising it?

It's not why would you. It's why can't you. And you can't because it's blazingly obvious that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

 

[Fervent]

Determinism is ultimately a description human behavior....nothing more.

This seems to be the point you and I disagree on, since it seems to me it is primarily a metaphysical thesis that has consequences for human behavior. Universal cogs turn, chemical reactions occur and electrical pulses operate and somehow meat machines sway to music no one can identiify.