Free will and determinism

[Mark Quayle]

What does google give you on freewill.
I get this:
freewill /frē′wĭl′/

adjective​

Done of one's own accord; voluntary.​

Done of your own accord.​

When a person chooses to leave from under God's influence, do they do so freely, of thier own accord?

A definition is drawn upon what people generally use a word to mean. PEOPLE

It's bad enough that you assume terms like, "one's own accord" and "voluntary", mean only what YOU take them to mean, but even if they DID mean what you take them to mean, they still do not imply that there IS such a thing as what they use to define the word, "freewill". The definition only means that that is what PEOPLE think of when they use the word.

 

[Bradskii]

So you want me to disprove something that is not proven?

It's a common scientific process. From here: Karl Popper: Falsification Theory

'Karl Popper’s theory of falsification contends that scientific inquiry should aim not to verify hypotheses but to rigorously test and identify conditions under which they are false.

For a theory to be valid according to falsification, it must produce hypotheses that have the potential to be proven incorrect by observable evidence or experimental results.

Unlike verification, falsification focuses on categorically disproving theoretical predictions rather than confirming them.'

You can't prove determinism because you'd need to investigate every single event. So the OP is based on 'IF determinism is true...' But you can disprove it by showing one single event that was not caused.

Why would I need to do something like that?

That's up to you. If you are absolutely sure that determinism is false then you must have at least one example?

Is that not like someone saying multiverses exist, and you need to disprove it, because it cannot be proved.

Correct. It's not like that at all.

Give me an example that you are thinking rationally...

All effects have causes. Now give me an example of one that doesn't.

...and I will give you another example that decisions are made with no antecedent causes.

Another example? You haven't given a single one.

 

[Jo555]

Sometimes the language throws me for a loop too: cause of the uncaused for causation, because the influencer has not ceased to influence the influenced.

In my frustration, i want to reply, "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickles."

Just can't wrap my head around it at times, and i get drunk on it, but hats off to you that can. I'm impressed.

So now I'm an armed and dangerous woman. The next time i am asked a question that loses me, I'm just to going say, "I'll answer your question if you will answer mine. If Peter Piper picked a peck of pickles, how many pickles did Peter Piper pick?"

Two can play at that game.

But there are a bunch of smarty pants on here and i know they will all get it right, leaving me with my bottle and Google wondering what just happened.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's run this one by @Mark Quayle, and yourself. If causal factors determined Cain's decision, why did God's influence fail.... and @Bradskii, why did other causal factors not determine Cain's decision?
In other words, there were "causal factors" that were opposing each other. How could one be the determiner, over the other?

The text doesn't say, but it's apparent that he might have been jealous. God gave Abel the thumbs up but denigrated Cain. Jealousy is an incredibly strong emotion. So in the absence of any other information I'd say that determined his action.

But I should point out that your position is not that we can't definitely decide which causal factor was instrumental, but that there were NO causal factors. Which isn't the case here, obviously. As you literally say 'why did other causal factors not determine Cain's decision? and 'there were "causal factors" '.

I think that you're arguing now simply because you don't like the claim. You don't seem to be following the argument at all. To the point where you are now using examples which support my claim but dismantle yours.

 

[Bradskii]

I chose to go law school because I want to be a lawyer.
I chose this because I want to secure my future with a good financial income.
Where are the antecedent causes?

I don't like using emoticons, but it is oh so tempting to put a big 'sigh...' right here.

You just gave two antecedent conditions. Your wants and desires, your likes and dislikes are all antecedent conditions. They are some of the main ones you use to make a decision. I'm going to make myself a coffee when I finish typing this because the only tea available is Earl Grey and I do not like drinking it.

Here's two antecedent conditions:
You want to be a lawyer.
Being a lawyer pays well.

Here's another two:
You don't want to be a janitor.
Being a janitor pays badly.

Now you have to make a choice of career based on those 4 conditions. Hey, I know which ones you're going to pick! It'll be the first two. So, and this is the important bit, they will be the antecedent conditions that determined your choice.

 

[Bradskii]

Please prove this assertion.

Please stop using the term 'prove'. Just keep think 'Popper'. It can't be proved, but it can be disproved. I am claiming that it is true because there is literally no event of which I am aware that wasn't caused by something. Yet again, all you have to do to prove your position is to give a single, solitary, undeniable example from the macro world (which is where we make decisions).

 

[Bradskii]

A reason, is not always a preceding cause. A reason can be a goal that one's choice affects.

You haven't decided to become a lawyer yet. There's lots you need to consider. But one of the existing factors that will determine your future decision is that you'd actually like to be a lawyer. It'll be one of the reasons that you may decide on that course.

I'm now drinking coffee.

Why? It's because I don't like Earl Grey.
What's the reason for that? It's because I don't like Earl Grey.
What was the cause of that happening? It's because I don't like Earl Grey.
What determined your choice? It's because I don't like Earl Grey.

Each question means the same thing. And each answer will give the antecedent condition that resulted in you deciding what to drink.

 

[Bradskii]

What does the posts in this thread mean by free will...

How can you ask that, and then state this?

The claim is that free will does not exist because there are an effectively infinite chain of events that determine one's choice.

You are asking the question, then giving the answer in the very next sentence...

 

[Bradskii]

What is an uncaused choice?

A choice that has no cause. As you asked a few posts upstream 'An example would be good'.

How do we get a caused choice?

You make a choice for a reason as opposed to an arbitrary coin toss.

 

[partinobodycular]

But you can disprove it by showing one single event that was not caused.

But how does one prove that what one claims to be 'causation' isn't simply correlation? Or are you simply going to go with the argument that it's 'causation' until someone can prove otherwise? In which case the opposite is also true, it's simply 'correlation' until someone can prove otherwise.

So if all that you can prove is that there's a correlation between the antecedent conditions and the choice, then how can you prove determinism and cause?

 

[Bradskii]

I make it because I will it.

Of course. Nobody is arguing that you are free to make choices. We're looking at why you make them. Maybe you can give us a reason why Picard just ordered the ship to Warp 5?

I don't deny that there are influences. That's why we try to influence our children to have good morals from an early age. But ultimately, they make their own choices.

Of course. Your influences on your children are antecedent conditions that they'll consider in making their decisions. Influences from others (social media, friends, other family members etc) are likewise antecedent conditions. They'll make a choice on what they prefer considering all of them.

What they won't do is make a decision without any influences. It's not possible.

 

[CoreyD]

Not that I can speak for @Bradskii but philosophical views are at best, ways to try to understand reality, or they are attempts to describe reality or something about reality. I'm a little surprised that you would take him to be supposing that philosophical views ARE reality.

That opposing views may (or may not) themselves be reality nor good descriptors of reality has no relevance upon what is reality.

Lol, I could even argue that, since the opposing views are not even cogent, they are not worth calling 'views'.

"No, he's not right --he's not even wrong!" is one of my favorite quotes.

The world is full of surprises.
Most are not surprising to me, because these are revealed for us, in scripture. Colossians 2:8

 

[Bradskii]

How does any of this prove you make choices whether free will exists or not.?

The questions are becoming more inane...

How in heaven's name can you ask how we prove that we make choices?

 

[CoreyD]

A definition is drawn upon what people generally use a word to mean. PEOPLE

It's bad enough that you assume terms like, "one's own accord" and "voluntary", mean only what YOU take them to mean, but even if they DID mean what you take them to mean, they still do not imply that there IS such a thing as what they use to define the word, "freewill". The definition only means that that is what PEOPLE think of when they use the word.

You've lost me. Did you say the same thing for determinism?

 

[Bradskii]

Why is a choice made, though influenced by knowledge...

Hang on...are you now admitting that all choices are influenced by knowledge?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

I guess existence could be neither, and we're stuck looking at a false dichotomy as well.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know from which language you hail, but, an example to add to the fun, South American Spanish has many instances where an intensifier translated into English might be mistaken for the negation of a negative (or, logically, a double-negative).

Sí. 'No dije nada' literally translated says 'I didn't say nothing'.

 

[Bradskii]

But how does one prove that what one claims to be 'causation' isn't simply correlation? Or are you simply going to go with the argument that it's 'causation' until someone can prove otherwise? In which case the opposite is also true, it's simply 'correlation' until someone can prove otherwise.

So if all that you can prove is that there's a correlation between the antecedent conditions and the choice, then how can you prove determinism and cause?

There's a correlation between me disliking Earl Gray and preferring coffee? There's a correlation someone wanting to be a lawyer and chasing a law degree? I'm not sure why you'd describe it as such.

Correlation could be defined as things having a connection so there is a connection there. But it doesn't deny that one caused the other. I'm really up to the back teeth in having to constantly keep repeating this...but an example of an effect without a cause would be beneficial. Even if there was some correlation.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess existence could be neither, and we're stuck looking at a false dichotomy as well.

Well, yeah. You could just be a brain in a vat. But on the assumption that we're all living in reality...

 

[Chesterton]

Of course. Nobody is arguing that you are free to make choices. We're looking at why you make them. Maybe you can give us a reason why Picard just ordered the ship to Warp 5?

I don't know why he did. I'd need some context. Maybe he decided they needed to escape a dangerous situation. Maybe he suddenly remembered he left a pie baking in the oven back on Earth. Regardless, he made a decision.

Of course. Your influences on your children are antecedent conditions that they'll consider in making their decisions. Influences from others (social media, friends, other family members etc) are likewise antecedent conditions. They'll make a choice on what they prefer considering all of them.

What they won't do is make a decision without any influences. It's not possible.

I think I agree with that.