Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

I won't ask you any more questions, sir.

That's good news. But you broke your promise immediately.

​

For example, if I find a 20 dollar bill, and I decide to give it to the first person I met, you might say that antecedent conditions led me to that decision...how does your argument stand?​

You might have noticed this comment I made earlier, which clarified something I've explained umpteen times at various times throughout this thread. You've obviously ignored the explanation every time I made it.

There will be some internal conditions that are relevant to Chesterton when you made the decision (your character...

Your character is one of the antecedent conditions that determines your choices. A person who tends to anger will act differently to somone who is placid. A miser might act differently to a spendthrift. Your character precedes the choice that you made. You were a generous person when you found the cash. It determined your action. It was what you preferred to do.

Now please. Try not to break that promise again.

 

[Mark Quayle]

CoreyD said:
Sure I have. You may not know this... or do you,, but from my experience, when an atheist tells a person, they did not give him what he asks for, he usually means, the person did not give him what he will accept.
That is nothing anyone can fix.

I have given examples where decisions are made with no antecedent causes.

No, you most definitely haven't.

@CoreyD I find it strange that you, after pointing out repeatedly that this is not a thread for religious discussion, would try to denigrate the OP's methods by your bias against atheists.

Further, what you say applies to all people, including Christians; it is human nature, not just atheists' nature.


And no, you have not even come close to giving examples where decisions are made with no antecedent causes. I'll give you credit for trying, and maybe even for satisfying yourself that you have done so. But when you are given rebuttal, do you not claim that it does not do the job, when it doesn't give you what you will accept?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Great story! Made me laugh out loud.

But yeah, I guess most of us have that feeling of 'Oh no. This is not good. What are we going to do now'. What? We? What are we going to do? Well, yeah. Both of you. The idiot that got you into the jam and the smart guy that's going to try to get you out of it.

What GOT me, though, was that the guy that is not allowed, not enabled, to make any decisions, was not confused. The other me, the one that HAS to make the decisions, didn't even know where I was! For all I knew, I could've been in South America again! Clueless. Ping-pong ball in a hurricane! "YOU know so much? Why don't YOU get us out of this??"​

​

I amazes me that people who insist on self-determinism as valid can find themselves tossed about by hormones, bad health, beauty, terror, circumstances, brain damage --you name it-- and still claim to be in control.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is it intentions, or intent? See what you people have done to me.

Who am I, and what have you done with Jo?

I KNOW you can't be saying that WE caused what your mind is doing now!

 

[Bradskii]

What GOT me, though, was that the guy that is not allowed, not enabled, to make any decisions, was not confused. The other me, the one that HAS to make the decisions, didn't even know where I was! For all I knew, I could've been in South America again! Clueless. Ping-pong ball in a hurricane! "YOU know so much? Why don't YOU get us out of this??"​

​

I amazes me that people who insist on self-determinism as valid can find themselves tossed about by hormones, bad health, beauty, terror, circumstances, brain damage --you name it-- and still claim to be in control.​

There are umpteen hypotheticals in the literature that show this. One being (and I'm paraphrasing from a couple that I remember) a mad scientist who has planted a device in your head by which he can inject chemicals into you which will change your behaviour. So you're out one night and the mad scientist presses the button and the chemicals flood your brain. You then do something remarkably stupid and dangerous and somebody dies as a direct result.

Who is to blame? Who gets charged? The scientist, obviously. He caused you to do it. You had no choice. And what were the chemicals? They'd be testosterone and adrenaline. But wait, it comes up in court that there was something wrong with the device. It failed, so the scientist wasn't the cause of the chemicals flooding the brain. It happened naturally. So now who is at fault? Well, isn't it you? No-one else was involved. Who else can it be?

Now imagine that you experiment on a pregnant woman. You ensure that her diet is atrocious. You make sure she drinks heavily during her pregnancy and takes drugs. You make sure her live-in boyfriend beats her regularly. You ensure she ends up homeless. She is stressed to the max. When the kid is born, he has the worst upbringing you can envisage. Drugs, no schooling, violence, alcohol, street gangs. His Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) score is off the charts. He is out of work, low IQ, mentally unstable - you've done a great job. He ends up robbing a 7-11 and someone gets stabbed. Who is at fault? You, because you planned all this? Surely the kid must be treated with compassion because he was simply part of an evil experiment. But wait, it changes like the last example. No-one planned this. It happened as a matter of course. So does our attitude to the boy change? For most people it does.

My position is that in both cases nobody is at fault. But somebody can be held responsible. However, for some the subtle difference between fault and responsibility doesn't exist. Because apparently there's a little 'you' somewhere that somehow can detach itself from the reality of life and make decisions that aren't caused by these mundane examples of hormones and upbringing.

I thought dualism was comparable to astrology and flat earth theories. I guess I was wrong. It's alive and kicking.

 

[Jo555]

I KNOW you can't be saying that WE caused what your mind is doing now!

No speak english. parlez-vous francais?

 

[Jo555]

So I have a good example of influences. This one is actually a recent one in my life.

So I get this awful news. Horrific. Not going into details, but it was bad. They told me if you go left it is bad. If you go right it is bad. If you go nowhere it is bad.

That's bad.

I'm terrified and I don't know what to do because it is all bad. So of course as a Christian I pray. I'm like Lord, this is bad. This is about as bad as it gets. What do I do and won't you do a miracle because it is so bad.

I'm terrified. Doesn't help that lefty was trying to install fear in me, as if I needed more of that, to get me to go his way as he felt he could help the best.

So as I said, I am praying. God has different ways to speak to me and one is through dreams and visions, if you believe in that. Whether you do or not you can walk away with something very valuable in this, if you don't have this already.

So I'm having these dreams and visions of finding the garage door open. In the dreams I'm like, how did that happen. I'd close the garage door only to find it open again and at one time a couple things were stolen. Other times it appeared that there may be people trying to steal and even caught one trying to force his way into home from the garage door that I found open again.

So I'm getting frustrated with God. I'm like Lord, why are you giving me this stuff with the garage door and people trying to break in or steal something when I'm in such a dire situation? Like can't you see how serious this is?

Like He don't know, but thankfully He worries about nothing. Yet I'm still terrified and whining, I want to know what to do. Which way do I go? I'm terrified and that is all He will show me. So I finally said, ok, I'll just have to trust if I pay attention to what you want to show me you will take care of this situation.

I came to realize he was trying to show me that my fears were opening the door for others to rob me of what He has equipped me with to hear from Him; to have that love, peace, and sound mind from his Spirit that helps to guide me.

And that really is what fear does. It robs you of making a decision guided by his Spirit in you.

For the atheist, it can rob you of making a decision that fits you.

So I continued on in prayer and his Word and watching a pastor on TV that he had impressed on me years ago when He showed me that this time was coming. I didn't know the details then though. I prayed for the situation and that He would grow my faith and trust in Him.

A few months later, I'm still in the situation, but I have that peace that passes all understanding that the Bible speaks of. I mean I have done a complete turn around. Physically, nothing has changed and physically the situation does appear to be worse, but I've changed within. I don't understand it. Everything tells me I should still be in panic mode, but I'm not.

My mind sometimes goes into the worry mode as I take in what I see in the natural, but it doesn't reach my heart. It makes no physical or logical sense, but I'm at peace during the most difficult time of my life. So I shut my mind down from all the doubts trying to reach my heart, something I found nearly impossible before, and I know come what may, it's going to be ok.

One of my favorite verses is Joshua 1:9
Do not be afraid, neither be thou dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you where ever you go.

And on that note I bow out of this thread because as much fun as I have had, at a much needed time, it's just taking too much of my time now and have quite a bit coming up the next few days, but I feel confident we will meet again.

 

[Chesterton]

There will be some internal conditions that are relevant to Chesterton when you made the decision (your character, your IQ, your age, your mood, maybe you were angry, tired, drunk, sick etc), so they would be some of the antecedent conditions, but you are the process. You are deciding between the options that you have available. The 'you' that is making the decision is not one of the options.

As best I can tell, you're saying my mind is not one of the antecedent conditions. I can agree with that.

They'll likely make different decisions. Isn't that all too obvious?

Stable or unstable, we all make different decisions.

 

[Bradskii]

Stable or unstable, we all make different decisions.

Of course. Our personal situations are never the same.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As best I can tell, you're saying my mind is not one of the antecedent conditions. I can agree with that.

If your mind is an antecedent condition (a cause), it was caused to be, no? If it is not, it does not cause decisions at all.

Stable or unstable, we all make different decisions.

True. And stable or unstable, our choices are caused.

 

[Chesterton]

If your mind is an antecedent condition (a cause), it was caused to be, no? If it is not, it does not cause decisions at all.

Bradskii and I seemed to agree that the mind is not an antecedent condition. (And at that point I thought I was done with this thread again. You should have let sleeping dogs lie.)

True. And stable or unstable, our choices are caused.

Same bald assertion repeated over and over and over.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Bradskii and I seemed to agree that the mind is not an antecedent condition. (And at that point I thought I was done with this thread again. You should have let sleeping dogs lie.)

I guess I would have to read through that interchange to even see what you mean by that in order to understand how anyone can think that the mind is not one of the causes involved in resulting decisions. Nevertheless, what I said is, to me, at least, reasonable. If the mind is not caused, it cannot cause.

Chesterton said:
Stable or unstable, we all make different decisions.
Mark Quayle said:
True. And stable or unstable, our choices are caused.

Same bald assertion repeated over and over and over.

Same as above.

But I intended it to point to the fact that the fact we make different decisions changes nothing as to the argument.

 

[Chesterton]

I guess I would have to read through that interchange to even see what you mean by that in order to understand how anyone can think that the mind is not one of the causes involved in resulting decisions. Nevertheless, what I said is, to me, at least, reasonable. If the mind is not caused, it cannot cause.

Chesterton said:
Stable or unstable, we all make different decisions.
Mark Quayle said:
True. And stable or unstable, our choices are caused.

I've never said the mind isn't caused. It's caused when mommy and daddy make a human baby.

Same as above.

But I intended it to point to the fact that the fact we make different decisions changes nothing as to the argument.

An assertion is not an argument.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've never said the mind isn't caused. It's caused when mommy and daddy make a human baby.

An assertion is not an argument.

Lol, well, I'll say, in order to continue to run afoul of each other, that I didn't say that you said that the mind isn't caused.

I read through your interchange. All I'm trying to say is that whether or not @Bradskii is saying that "process" is not "antecedent condition" when he differentiated between the two, I don't see him as saying that "process" (mind) is not causal in whatever happens subsequently.



Chesterton said:
Stable or unstable, we all make different decisions.

True. So what? I don't see the relevance to the argument.

 

[Chesterton]

Lol, well, I'll say, in order to continue to run afoul of each other, that I didn't say that you said that the mind isn't caused.

I read through your interchange. All I'm trying to say is that whether or not @Bradskii is saying that "process" is not "antecedent condition" when he differentiated between the two, I don't see him as saying that "process" (mind) is not causal in whatever happens subsequently.

I'll let Bradskii speak for himself if he wishes to.

Chesterton said:
Stable or unstable, we all make different decisions.

True. So what? I don't see the relevance to the argument.

I addressed that to an atheist. You're not an atheist, and it may make a difference. Although I'm honestly curious what you mean by "reformed Calvinist". If someone says they're a reformed thief, that tells me they're no longer a thief. So I'm not sure if you're a Calvinist.

Basically, for an atheist determinist, there's no actual difference between sane and insane. It's just the physical universe playing itself out in different ways. It's somewhat akin to when a religious person says humans are the pinnacle of creation, and the atheist reminds them that "cheetahs are faster than humans, dogs have a better sense of smell, etc. Humans aren't better, just different".

 

[Bradskii]

I'll let Bradskii speak for himself if he wishes to.

I do so wish.

Making a decision is the process whereby you decide between various options. Which are, in effect, the antecedent conditions. You, and by that I mean your character, your mood, your age etc, will be some of those conditions. But making the decision is not.

Say you take the bus to work. You can say:
I decided that because my car is in for service.
I decided that because it's cheaper than the train.
I decided that because it's too far to walk.

What you can't say is:
I decided that because I made the decision to do that.

Which is nonsensical.

But in passing, quite a lot of people in this thread say that that is exactly why they do anything. 'I did it just because I decided to do it. Look - I just decided to raise my arm and I did it'. And if you ask them why they did that, what was the reason they raised their arm, they'll tell you: 'I wanted to show you that I could do it'.

They will literally tell you the cause of them doing something they say had no cause. And it shouldn't need me to point out that if someone did actually raise their arm a few times a day literally for no reason at all then they'd need to seek help. That would be the difference between, as you mention in the post above, being sane or insane.

It's all determined.

 

[Chesterton]

I do so wish.

Making a decision is the process whereby you decide between various options. Which are, in effect, the antecedent conditions. You, and by that I mean your character, your mood, your age etc, will be some of those conditions. But making the decision is not.

I deny that options are antecedent conditions. They're not "conditions" at all. Options are currently existing options.

Say you take the bus to work. You can say:
I decided that because my car is in for service.
I decided that because it's cheaper than the train.
I decided that because it's too far to walk.

What you can't say is:
I decided that because I made the decision to do that.

Which is nonsensical.

I already used C. S. Lewis to bring up the distinction between the two senses of the word "because" - the Cause and Effect sense, and the Ground and Consequent sense. The fact that you can make a decision based on a reason in no way means you didn't make a decision, or that you couldn't have chosen otherwise.

But in passing, quite a lot of people in this thread say that that is exactly why they do anything. 'I did it just because I decided to do it. Look - I just decided to raise my arm and I did it'. And if you ask them why they did that, what was the reason they raised their arm, they'll tell you: 'I wanted to show you that I could do it'.

They will literally tell you the cause of them doing something they say had no cause. And it shouldn't need me to point out that if someone did actually raise their arm a few times a day literally for no reason at all then they'd need to seek help. That would be the difference between, as you mention in the post above, being sane or insane.

It's all determined.

A reason is not always a cause. I can see where you get confused. Say I see firemen who've rushed to a burning building. I ask them why they went to the building. After looking at me like I'm stupid, one of them says "because the building is on fire, that's the reason we came". Read carelessly, or thought through carelessly, that could appear as if the cause and the reason are one and the same. But no, the fire is the reason, the cause is the fireman's choice to come. And there's not a force in the natural universe, past or present, which could have forced him to come, other than himself.

 

[Bradskii]

I deny that options are antecedent conditions. They're not "conditions" at all. Options are currently existing options.

The bus is convenient.
The train is expensive.

Those are antecedent conditions. Those are also the options that you have. Do you take the the convenient bus or the expensive train? You decide on the first option. The fact that it was convenient is the reason you chose it. It is your preference. Where's the problem in any of that?

I already used C. S. Lewis to bring up the distinction between the two senses of the word "because" - the Cause and Effect sense, and the Ground and Consequent sense. The fact that you can make a decision based on a reason in no way means you didn't make a decision, or that you couldn't have chosen otherwise.

Yet again, no-one denied that you made a decision. Stop arguing against this. And you choose what you prefer. That is by definition. When you choose something you are selecting the option that you prefer. This is a given. It's axiomatic. It shouldn't need to be explained. In exactly the same situation you are still 'selecting the option that you prefer'.

A reason is not always a cause. I can see where you get confused. Say I see firemen who've rushed to a burning building. I ask them why they went to the building. After looking at me like I'm stupid, one of them says "because the building is on fire, that's the reason we came". Read carelessly, or thought through carelessly, that could appear as if the cause and the reason are one and the same. But no, the fire is the reason, the cause is the fireman's choice to come.

They are one and the same. If they were different then you could take out 'the building is on fire' as a reason and the cause of the fireman being there is simply because the fireman decided to come.

'What caused you to be here?'
'I simply decided to come.'

Now we're back to ridiculous acts as I mentioned earlier.

'Why did you raise your arm?'
'I simply decided to raise it'

I've listed these before, but I'll do it again.

Why did you do X?
What was the reason you did X?
What caused you to do X?

They all mean exactly the same thing. So if we ask the fireman why he came to the fire, or what was the reason he came to the fire, or what caused him to come to the fire, a truly nonsensical answer would be 'I decided to.' That's not the reason. We want to know why he is there. What caused him to be there. And the patently obvious answer is that it's because the house is on fire.

 

[Chesterton]

The bus is convenient.
The train is expensive.

Those are antecedent conditions. Those are also the options that you have. Do you take the the convenient bus or the expensive train? You decide on the first option. The fact that it was convenient is the reason you chose it. It is your preference. Where's the problem in any of that?

I don't have much problem with that, because you're leaving out your determinism - the fact that you think the Big Bang made me take the bus and I couldn't have possibly done otherwise.

Yet again, no-one denied that you made a decision. Stop arguing against this. And you choose what you prefer. That is by definition. When you choose something you are selecting the option that you prefer. This is a given. It's axiomatic. It shouldn't need to be explained. In exactly the same situation you are still 'selecting the option that you prefer'.

If I make a decision that I was forced to make, and had no choice or ability to decide otherwise, that's by definition not a decision, any more than water flowing downhill is making a decision. Yet that's what you argue for throughout this thread.

They are one and the same. If they were different then you could take out 'the building is on fire' as a reason and the cause of the fireman being there is simply because the fireman decided to come.

'What caused you to be here?'
'I simply decided to come.'

Now we're back to ridiculous acts as I mentioned earlier.

'Why did you raise your arm?'
'I simply decided to raise it'

There's nothing ridiculous about either of those things.

I've listed these before, but I'll do it again.

Why did you do X?
What was the reason you did X?
What caused you to do X?

They all mean exactly the same thing.

The first two are basically the same. The third is not.

So if we ask the fireman why he came to the fire, or what was the reason he came to the fire, or what caused him to come to the fire, a truly nonsensical answer would be 'I decided to.' That's not the reason. We want to know why he is there. What caused him to be there. And the patently obvious answer is that it's because the house is on fire.

Explain how the fire caused the fireman to go to the fire.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't have much problem with that, because you're leaving out your determinism - the fact that you think the Big Bang made me take the bus and I couldn't have possibly done otherwise.

You took the bus because that was what you preferred. Because it was more convenient. Because there are lots of buses running. Because it's a popular route. Because the destination is a busy office area. Because the rents are lower than the city. Because the council wanted to make the area more desirable for business. Because there was profit in that. Because...well, how long have we got? I can keep going back to the area being settled. Or the reasons why it was suitable for settlement. And the geographic and climatic conditions that made it so. How far shall we go back looking at cause and effect? Looking at what determined each step.

If I make a decision that I was forced to make, and had no choice or ability to decide otherwise, that's by definition not a decision, any more than water flowing downhill is making a decision. Yet that's what you argue for throughout this thread.

No, it most definitely isn't. And I'm pretty sure you'd know that. Having a reason to do something, a reason which causes you to prefer one option over all others, is not forcing you to make that decision. You are not being coerced in any way. It's your choice to make as you see fit. But it is completely undeniable that whatever you choose was determined by at least one of the antecedent conditions. Again, that is a given. Else you made the decision for no reason at all.

There's nothing ridiculous about either of those things.

There's nothing ridiculous in doing something for no reason? Unless it's an involuntary act or something at random - in which case free will is not involved, then it's literally impossible. Try it. Do something right now before reading the next sentence.

Now, did you think about it? No? Then there wasn't even a decision let alone free will. You did think about it? Then you chose to do it. And the reason for that choice was that you were asked to do something. Just saying 'I simply decided to do it for no reason' is borderline Tourettes.

The first two are basically the same. The third is not.

From Merriam-Webster: Definition of CAUSE

Cause: reason for an action or condition.

That is, why it happened.

Explain how the fire caused the fireman to go to the fire.

Oh, good grief...

The fire started. Someone noticed it. They called 911. A call was sent to the nearest fire brigade. An alarm went off there. Those on duty rushed to the fire truck and were given the address. They drove to where the fire was.

Cause and effect every step of the way. If there was no fire then he wouldn't be there. There was a fire and that's why he was there. It was the reason he was there. It was the cause of him being there.