Free will and determinism

[Ana the Ist]

It's the reason that I have said on several occasions that if free will exists or it doesn't, then hardly anything changes. Either way, you still make choices.

If you believe we are making choices...you aren't a determinist.

I'd love for someone to give us an example (although if one is forthcoming, I guarantee it will confuse wanting with preferring and I'll have to explain the difference yet again).

* I should expand on this as I expect some push back. I'll make it personal.

I was reversing out of my drive last year. I won't go into details of how careful I do this each and every time but suffice to say I took all precautions that a reasonable person could be expected to take. But...there was an elderly gentleman crossing the road and he was in my blind spot and the side of the car came into contact with him. He fell and was injured. I guess I was extremely lucky as someone of that age falling can suffer very serious injuries indeed. Anyway, I was charged with a driving offence and had to appear in court.

Now I had done everything I could have done to reverse safely, as I have done safely many thousands of times. But it happened anyway. Things just turned out the wrong way. I told the court all that I had done as a reasonable driver should have done and in my opinion it was an accident in the true sense of the word. But I pleaded guilty. Because I was responsible.

The antecedent conditions were such that the accident was inevitable. The exact time the guy was crossing, the exact point he crossed, the angle of my car etc etc etc. But I was still responsible.

Now, should the magistrate take into account those antecedent conditions? Yes, she should. And she did. She accepted that I wasn't what one might say criminally negligent, but I was indeed responsible. And that is generally the only change that a realisation that free will doesn't exist will make. You'll be aware of the reasons why someone chose as they did and acted as they did, and quite often they would have had no control over those reasons. They will still be responsible for their actions, but you can take into account those 'mitigating circumstance' to a greater extent than you would normally.

This is actually a better argument for the fact that you don't sincerely believe in determinism. You should have told the judge your whole theory about cause and effect and explained that since you didn't have any choice in the matter....you can't possibly be any more responsible than the old man was.

You two were fated to collide long before you were even born. Responsible isn't a word you should even use in such situations.

You either didn't do that because you know this has nothing to do with being legally responsible for damages. Something determined by law....not cause and effect...or you just don't really believe in determinism enough to act as if it were true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions without the decision being determined or influenced by any prior event or state of the universe.'

That's not free will.

Free will is the capacity or ability to [COLOR=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]choose[/COLOR] between different possible courses of [COLOR=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]action[/COLOR].[COLOR=var(--color-progressive,#36c)][1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#cite_note-Carus1910-1[/COLOR]

That's all free will is...the ability to make choices. The idea that we would have to make them without a universe is fundamentally absurd. What sort of choices would we be able to make absent the existence of a universe?

 

[Ana the Ist]

For anyone not following...the idea that free will must involve some choice that's in no way influenced by the universe is both fundamentally flawed in its basic logic...and extremely dumb.

At bare minimum, the determinist has to concede that in order to even talk about human behavior...I have to exist within a universe capable of existing in.

That's a necessary influence for any possible action.

Note that he isn't linking to any definition of free will....because nobody with the ability to think would ever define it as "independent from the universe". It's a description of gods....not people.

So just outright reject this definition. Determinism has always been a rather bad description of anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Determinism, I think, is a result of the religious impulse in some atheists. Absent a complete understanding of reality.....or the human mind....it attacks free will to prop up a bad description of everything. It's the feeling of understanding how everything works that gives the concept some appeal to the godless.

At its core though... it's just bad logic, fundamentally unprovable or unfalsifiable....placing it in the realm of faith-based belief.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it isn't possible....it's not a choice, and since determinism argues....

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

That makes any attempt of judgment of moral responsibility for our actions inherently untenable and entirely wrong.

So just abandon all your morals determinist....nobody is responsible for their actions because they can't make choices.

Ok....let's hear em.

You're the one insisting this is a better description of human behavior...don't tell me you're certain 100 unique causes exist without telling me what they could possibly be. I warned you about the "cause of the gaps" argument you'd step into....you stepped in anyway.

Failure to do so is itself an admission that simply describing it as a choice made freely by my will or reason or anything really....is a better description of human behavior.

Remember when I said you would keep talking as if we are all free will actors?

You're claiming to be a determinist. You don't believe in choice. I'm only choosing 1 and it must have it's distinct cause....not applicable to any other bottles...or I would have another possible choice.

So let's hear these 100 causes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it isn't possible....it's not a choice, and since determinism argues....

Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did."

That makes any attempt of judgment of moral responsibility for our actions inherently untenable and entirely wrong.

So just abandon all your morals determinist....nobody is responsible for their actions because they can't make choices.

Off topic. Check the OP.

Ok....let's hear em.

You're the one insisting this is a better description of human behavior.

Off topic.

..don't tell me you're certain 100 unique causes exist without telling me what they could possibly be. I warned you about the "cause of the gaps" argument you'd step into....you stepped in anyway.

Failure to do so is itself an admission that simply describing it as a choice made freely by my will or reason or anything really....is a better description of human behavior.

Might be fun to point to your "fill the gaps" method of 'proving' uncaused free will. You reject the obvious chains of causation, and just from the mere, "It feels to me like uncaused choice", you decide causation is invalid, even invalid as an abstract concept. I'm glad you're not a scientist!

Remember when I said you would keep talking as if we are all free will actors?

You're claiming to be a determinist. You don't believe in choice.

It's long past time to drop that mantra, or stand up and demonstrate its veracity. I do believe in choice. It is you that has determined that choice can only be real if the options are equally possible.

I'm only choosing 1 and it must have it's distinct cause....not applicable to any other bottles...or I would have another possible choice.

So let's hear these 100 causes.

What logic makes you think I should be able to produce the (at least) 100 causes for the differences between the apparently otherwise identical hypothetical bottles of liquid in your hypothetical fridge? My knowing some of the differences has nothing to do with the fact that there are differences.

I should think you would see some obvious differences: the inconsistencies of production/production, the fact they were filled and capped and loaded into your fridge at slightly different times, etc etc etc. What is the point in this?

 

[partinobodycular]

Determined would mean 'that which caused X'. Influenced would mean 'that which has an effect on X'. So the fact that it's raining will have an influence on your decision to go to the beach. If you then decide not to go because it's raining then that fact determined your choice.

Incorrect. The rain did indeed have an influence on whether or not I go to the beach, but the degree of influence that it had wasn't determined by the rain itself, it was determined by something internal to me, not external.

Something within myself has to serve as the determining factor as to how much influence external events will have on my choices. Therefore the real determining factor has to be internal to me... it's the thing that determines how much influence external events will have.

Will event 'A' have an influence or not? If so... how much? That's a factor that has to be determined internally.

 

[Bradskii]

Incorrect. The rain did indeed have an influence on whether or not I go to the beach, but the degree of influence that it had wasn't determined by the rain itself, it was determined by something internal to me, not external.

Something within myself has to serve as the determining factor as to how much influence external events will have on my choices. Therefore the real determining factor has to be internal to me... it's the thing that determines how much influence external events will have.

Will event 'A' have an influence or not? If so... how much? That's a factor that has to be determined internally.

No problem. You're the one making the choice. No-one else. You have a little internal debate about it. You are influenced (to use your term) by an immense number of factors, some of them very influential, some not so much. And a lot of them have to do with you. Are you the type of person who likes the beach? Is there something else you'd prefer? Are you feeling tired or off colour? Have you promised your wife to do something around the house?

These are all antecedent conditions. The state of the universe prior to you making your decision. And all these conditions were determined by prior conditions as well. It's raining because of certain meteorological conditions. You don't like the beach because you nearly drowned as a kid. You'd prefer to go for a beer with a mate who has just turned up that you haven't seen in a long time.

So you will weigh all these influences and make a decision. And that decision will then have been determined by some of those antecedent conditions. Obviously. Because you just ran through all the ones of which you are aware and made a decision. Your decision was based on them.

What's not to understand about all this? It's how we all work whether there's free will or not. Except it's you making the decision based on prior conditions and not some mini-me that can somehow ignore them all.

 

[Fervent]

That seems something of a nonsensical question. You will decide that. Remember that free will doesn't exclude making decisions. Happy with that?

So then my decisions are not determined prior to my making the decision? Free will doesn't exclude making decisions, but determinism does.

Of course. What else could they be based on? You have to base your decisions on something. Agreed?

You're kicking the can down the road. Seems that free will is no longer an illusion, other than where it operates. So what's the point of trying to displace it?

Those antecedent causes will include you. Your knowledge, your mood, your intelligence, your physiological make up...literally everything about you. You're the one making the choice. If you're in a bad mood you might make a different decision than if you were in a good mood. If you are hungry you might make a different one than if you were satiated. If you're drunk, depressed, intelligent, sick...it's ll part of the mix. But it's up to you. You choose. But what you choose (spoiler alert again) will always be what you prefer. Thumbs up on that aspect?

You're just creating a confusing mess of a theory, when it is far simpler to simply accept free will as authentic and exploring its parameters. Determinism is an entirely unnecessary element to add to our description of human behavior, and it only makes things convoluted as you twist yourself into tighter and tighter pretzels. So why bother with it?

Now I'm sure that all that seems quite straight forward:
You make the decision.
It's based on all the antecedent conditions.
The decision is what you prefer to do.

And how do we come by our preferences? At what point do we involve intentional action and self-direction? Wherever you introduce that, that's where free will is located. Or do you want to maintain that such things are illusion and the reality is mindless chemical reactions and electrical impulses across a special geometric arrangement, all of which are the result of randomly colliding particles...as if by magic?

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is funny.

Reasons don't exist outside your head. They're created through a process your brain engages in called reasoning. It can involve a rational or irrational consideration of known possible choices and unknown or uncertain possible choices and the outcomes of each.

The reason you create in your mind isn't obviously predetermined....as it doesn't necessarily exist outside your mind.

It's exactly this process that gives us the ability to choose between choices....real or imagined. Free will choices.

So round we go. You actually believe the thoughts in your mind operate independent of causes? How would they even have cogent (or otherwise) structure?

 

[Fervent]

Would you say that God did not exist before he 'invented' time? Or do you place God as only another resident within time? God even 'invented' cause-and-effect, with himself first cause. Time is only a tool, not a governor over God's economy.

It is remarkable that current science is questioning the constancy of time. Their thinking need not depend on time sequence of events, but they have been unable to get away from the logic of causation, because their very pursuit of facts and principles depends on it. It is not doublespeak.

The options (except the ones chosen) are rendered illusory by my thinking. Choice is not rendered illusory. Yours, "renders 'choices' illusory", is the inexact statement. But I expect it was not done purposefully vague, so I won't insult it with the name, "doublespeak". Nevertheless, it was vague, which seems to me to be pervasive in your thinking.

There's no inexactness to my statement, it's an entailment of determinism. If every "choice" we make is determined prior to us choosing such a thing, whether after the fact we want to describe it in terms of "preference" or not, there is no genuine choice made. If there is a linear path we're following without the possibility of diverting from it, and that path was set before we were born, then we don't make any choices along the way. We watch as a script runs and pretend that we're making choices when all we're doing is what whatever set the course has us do. You have to rely on doublespeak, not as a matter of inexactness, but because believing such a thing is unliveable. What I don't understand is why you would pretend to believe such a thing, even though it results in you having to play word games to affirm and deny it at the same time? Why engage in such self-deception?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What's not to understand about all this? It's how we all work whether there's free will or not. Except it's you making the decision based on prior conditions and not some mini-me that can somehow ignore them all.

Right. A mini-me that has no immediate preferences at the moment of decision, and decides according to mere chance.

 

[QvQ]

On another thread there is a discussion of prayer.
Prayer would be pre-determined and also the answer?
Because it is according to the Will of God
Whatever the answer to the prayer
I always believed in predetermined or chain of causality rather than free will but I never thought about it in relation to prayer
I do know that the longer I am Christian the less I pray for God's intervention because I have greater faith in God's will and providence
As my will becomes more in accordance with God's will, then the entire reality becomes a prayer, inside and out, if anyone can understand that statement.
I don't need to ask so often or so much, just watch and praise God. Delight in Him.

Interesting thought

 

[Fervent]

This is funny.

Reasons don't exist outside your head. They're created through a process your brain engages in called reasoning. It can involve a rational or irrational consideration of known possible choices and unknown or uncertain possible choices and the outcomes of each.

The reason you create in your mind isn't obviously predetermined....as it doesn't necessarily exist outside your mind.

It's exactly this process that gives us the ability to choose between choices....real or imagined. Free will choices.

Yeah...he plays loose and fast with the word "cause" among other select words.

 

[Fervent]

I do know that the longer I am Christian the less I pray because I have greater faith in God's will and providence
I don't need to ask so often or so much

That seems to cut against the advice of Jesus and Paul who both exhorted an increase in prayer the deeper into faith we go. So maybe there's some error in your thinking here?

 

[Mark Quayle]

There's no inexactness to my statement, it's an entailment of determinism. If every "choice" we make is determined prior to us choosing such a thing, whether after the fact we want to describe it in terms of "preference" or not, there is no genuine choice made.

I should hope you would draw your conclusions on more than just an assertion. To speak like someone who has posted earlier, "C'mon, let's see the evidence" that the simple logic of causation does not explain choice.

If there is a linear path we're following without the possibility of diverting from it, and that path was set before we were born, then we don't make any choices along the way.

Repeated assertion.

We watch as a script runs and pretend that we're making choices when all we're doing is what whatever set the course has us do. You have to rely on doublespeak, not as a matter of inexactness, but because believing such a thing is unliveable.

How is it unliveable, and, again, where is the doublespeak, but from the point of view of your unproven assumption?

What I don't understand is why you would pretend to believe such a thing, even though it results in you having to play word games to affirm and deny it at the same time? Why engage in such self-deception?

What are these word-games? I have been clear and consistent all along about what I believe. It is your POV that finds a problem by its presuming of the integrity of the notion of uncaused free will.

But, since you are more or less fun to talk to, I will float another thought here, that might help you and other readers understand determinism more accurately. You and I believe in God, and one of my points in arguments with "libertarian" free-willers (proponents of uncaused free will) is that, since, they claim, God gave man limited autonomy, is that if God gave it to them, it is STILL CAUSED. You may not be able to follow this principle, but if a thing is caused in the general/large, it is caused in every particular. So to agree that limited autonomy (if there is such a thing) is caused, it can be caused only in general but not in particularities. That is false, but I won't go to the trouble in this post to explain. I should hope it would be obvious to you that it is not like God to operate by the seat of his pants, instead of by purpose from the very beginning.

But my point in stating the paragraph above this, is that whether, as I believe, God is first cause, or even whether there IS a first cause as opposed to "elephants all the way down", causation is in all cases causal of all effects. And there are no choices that are not effects.

 

[QvQ]

That seems to cut against the advice of Jesus and Paul who both exhorted an increase in prayer the deeper into faith we go. So maybe there's some error in your thinking here?

I was always a very anxious and worried person. Free floating anxiety
Fear governed my life, worry worry worry
For a long time I prayed for God's protection, for God to take care of things
Now I pray more but it is different
It is a prayer, more of a hymn of knowing that God answered those prayers and I can rely on him
Life itself has become a prayer, as God's will and providence unfolds in my life
Faith has replaced my fears and now my prayers are hymns to God's glory.

I suppose that was predetermined as all those fears were keeping me constantly aware and in communication with Him.
Now it is a habit but a song more than a pleading

 

[Mark Quayle]

That seems to cut against the advice of Jesus and Paul who both exhorted an increase in prayer the deeper into faith we go. So maybe there's some error in your thinking here?

That would depend on one's definition of prayer. The longer one walks with God the more God is on his mind and the more he realizes immediate communication with every thought.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Incorrect. The rain did indeed have an influence on whether or not I go to the beach, but the degree of influence that it had wasn't determined by the rain itself, it was determined by something internal to me, not external.

Yes, your internal operators are the deciders, affected by external and other internal causes, to include, perhaps, feeling under the weather, bad memories from past experiences with rain, and so on. Not only that, but the structure of your very brain matter is caused to be and do what it does. Nothing quite random. Thus, caused.

Something within myself has to serve as the determining factor as to how much influence external events will have on my choices. Therefore the real determining factor has to be internal to me... it's the thing that determines how much influence external events will have.

Will event 'A' have an influence or not? If so... how much? That's a factor that has to be determined internally.

How does "internal" mean, "uncaused"?

 

[Fervent]

I should hope you would draw your conclusions on more than just an assertion. To speak like someone who has posted earlier, "C'mon, let's see the evidence" that the simple logic of causation does not explain choice.

You have it backwards, you're the one asserting that there is a total causal chain in effect that eliminates real choice. My position isn't based on an assertion, it's based on taking my experiences of making choices at face value. You tell me there's these mysterious causes that are really at the heart of my choices, so you need to give an account of how such a thing works.

Repeated assertion.

You don't seem to understand what an "assertion" is..what I am stating there is simply logical entailments. If there are no genuine options, there is no genuine choice. Just an illusion of choice.

How is it unliveable, and, again, where is the doublespeak, but from the point of view of your unproven assumption?

It's quite clear as "determinists" seem to fall all over themselves creating convoluted situations to defend their indefensible theory rather than providing a substantive rebuttal to the charges laid against them. If you truly believed that every decision was pre-determined before you made the decision you would admit that you have no choice to make, and just wait until whatever choices are made for you are made.

What are these word-games? I have been clear and consistent all along about what I believe. It is your POV that finds a problem by its presuming of the integrity of the notion of uncaused free will.

You claim to believe in determinism, which entails a denial of free choice. But then you try to rectify it by kicking the can down the road and saying people choose what they "prefer". Which doesn't get rid of the problem of free will and determinism, it just kicks up dust about the issue. After all, where do these "preferences" come from?

But, since you are more or less fun to talk to, I will float another thought here, that might help you and other readers understand determinism more accurately. You and I believe in God, and one of my points in arguments with "libertarian" free-willers (proponents of uncaused free will) is that, since, they claim, God gave man limited autonomy, is that if God gave it to them, it is STILL CAUSED. You may not be able to follow this principle, but if a thing is caused in the general/large, it is caused in every particular. So to agree that limited autonomy (if there is such a thing) is caused, it can be caused only in general but not in particularities. That is false, but I won't go to the trouble in this post to explain. I should hope it would be obvious to you that it is not like God to operate by the seat of his pants, instead of by purpose from the very beginning.

You're looking at the issue too deeply. Free will is nothing more than ownership of our choices. We need not get into metaphysical speculation about causes or antecedents, because those things just lead to unnecessary confusion and convoluted theories. We have free will, and there is a seemingly deterministic structure to the universe. The issue is, how do we explain both things being true? We can become fatalist and insist that God micromanages and is really the sole cause of every decision, or we can accept that it is a mystery that only an omniscient being could hope to solve. You're inventing an argument that need not happen, and painting yourself into a corner based on nothing but your own limited understanding.

But my point in stating the paragraph above this, is that whether, as I believe, God is first cause, or even whether there IS a first cause as opposed to "elephants all the way down", causation is in all cases causal of all effects. And there are no choices that are not effects.

I don't believe a model of mechanical causation is a true model of reality. It's useful, but I don't think it's truth.