Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Do I need to underline that 'you' for you?

That was In response to me saying:

'You will always choose that which you prefer (which is a truism whether free will exists or not).'

So you've got a choice of a 20% pay rise or a 20% pay cut. You choose the raise. Why?
'Well, believe it or not, it was my preferred choice.'
That's as per the truism above. But...
Your buddy chooses the pay cut. Why?
'I wanted the raise. That was my a preference. But this guy was beating me with a baseball bat and said he wouodn't stop until I picked the cut.'

You choose what you preferred. You had a free choice. But your buddy was coerced. Hehad to the pick what someone else preferred. It wasn't a free choice by any stretch of the imagination.

What's the difficulty in understanding that? I'm having a problem in understanding why you are pushing this discussion on coercion. Being forced to do something is the very opposite of having a free will choice.

 

[Bradskii]

It depends on what we mean by "independent", if we mean by that the decision is not situated within history and has no prior context then of course not.

I have no idea what that means. Independent simply means that no prior conditions have had any influence. That nothing has determined your choice. The only example you have given shows that that is not the case. So unless you have another..?

 

[Bradskii]

There are a number of flaws in @Bradskii's argument against free will, not the least of which is his definition thereof. So let's begin by examining his definition.





The first part... the "ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events", is an acceptably standard definition of free will. But the second part... the "and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision.", seems to be something that @Bradskii made up all on his own, and definitely doesn't seem to be part of any standard definition of free will that I can find.

So lets stick with the abbreviated version of @Bradskii's definition of free will. 'The ability to make decisions that aren't determined by prior events.' Now let's break this down into it's constituent parts in an attempt to determine exactly what it's saying.

First: 'Ability' (1 a) implies the capacity, but not the necessity to make decisions that aren't determined by prior events.

Second: 'Decision' (1 b) is a determination arrived at after consideration.

Third: 'Determined by prior events' (2 a) means to fix the form, position or character of beforehand.

From #2 we know that consideration and contemplation are prerequisite parts of a decision, free will or otherwise. There simply can't be a decision without a mental component as the final arbiter thereof. There can be an action without a conscious arbiter, but there can't be a decision without a conscious arbiter.

Using @Bradskii's example of John Proctor as a case study, what can we know about the decision making process? First of all, we know that coercion wasn't the determining factor in John Proctor's choice. His choice was made in spite of the coercion, not because of it. From this we know that no matter how coercive or compelling a prior event may seem to be, it's not the determining factor in the final decision. It's still going to come down to that mental consideration and contemplation. You can make the prior events as coercive as you like, they still don't determine the outcome. The factors under consideration may turn out to be completely mundane.

Just to be clear, coercion comes in two forms, positive and negative. Neither of which constitute a determining factor.

Ultimately, decisions come down to consideration and contemplation... and what is it that does that? My mind does that.

Completely agree. Nothing in any of that with which I have a problem. I might argue that in Proctor's case there was no coercion to choose to be hanged. In fact, one could say he was coerced to avoid it. But he preferred to be hanged. So definitely no coercion in choosing death. A decision that 'came down to consideration and contemplation'.

 

[Bradskii]

The first part... the "ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events", is an acceptably standard definition of free will. But the second part... the "and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision.", seems to be something that @Bradskii made up all on his own, and definitely doesn't seem to be part of any standard definition of free will that I can find.

Incidently, the second phrase isn't part of the definition. It's the conclusion. A hypothetical outcome. Rerun everything exactly as before and Michael always kills Fredo. Every time.

 

[partinobodycular]

I might argue that in Proctor's case there was no coercion to choose to be hanged. In fact, one could say he was coerced to avoid it.

That was exactly my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Danforth attempted to coerce Mr. Proctor into signing the confession by threatening him with death if he didn't. You can't get much more coercive than that. But it didn't work. All that coercion does is alter the conditions under which the decision is to be made, but it doesn't predetermine the decision, as we saw in Mr. Proctor's case. He was still free to choose either one.

Just to reiterate, coercion can take either a negative or a positive form. I can offer you something that you want, or I can threaten you with something that you don't. As in the case of Mr. Proctor, he was still free to choose either one.

In and of itself this doesn't refute determinism, you just have to look somewhere other than coercion to find it. Coercion just alters the conditions of the decision, but it doesn't predetermine it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Incidently, the second phrase isn't part of the definition. It's the conclusion. A hypothetical outcome. Rerun everything exactly as before and Michael always kills Fredo.

Fair enough. The 'and' certainly made it seem as if it was part of the definition. My bad. None-the-less I disagree with its premise, that rerunning the scenario and getting the same result disproves free will. In fact I would argue the exact opposite, that the will is part of the scenario, and if it's the same, then the outcome will be the same. Wills aren't subject to random variations.

Which of course would then lead to the claim that they must therefore be deterministic... but determined by what? That's the point that we're stuck on. I would argue that that which makes me 'me' is also that which makes my will.

We just have to figure out what a will is. Care to take a shot at it?

 

[Bradskii]

That was exactly my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Danforth attempted to coerce Mr. Proctor into signing the confession by threatening him with death if he didn't. You can't get much more coercive than that. But it didn't work. All that coercion does is alter the conditions under which the decision is to be made, but it doesn't predetermine the decision, as we saw in Mr. Proctor's case. He was still free to choose either one.

Just to reiterate, coercion can take either a negative or a positive form. I can offer you something that you want, or I can threaten you with something that you don't. As in the case of Mr. Proctor, he was still free to choose either one.

In and of itself this doesn't refute determinism, you just have to look somewhere other than coercion to find it. Coercion just alters the conditions of the decision, but it doesn't predetermine it.

I'll accept that up to a point. You could have a scenario where a guy is going to kill your family unless you rob a bank. I think most people would consider that coercion and he wasn't making a free will choice to rob it. But...you could also say that he still had a choice. Although what on earth would make him prefer to see his family killed I can't imagine.

But...he's either being coerced or something is obviously determining his decision to sacrifice his family. Either way...no free will there.

 

[partinobodycular]

So you've got a choice of a 20% pay rise or a 20% pay cut. You choose the raise. Why?
'Well, believe it or not, it was me preferred choice.
That's a per thetruism above. But...
Your buddy chooses the pay cut. Why?
'I wanted the raise. That was my a preference. But this guy was beating me with a baseball bat and said he wouodn't stop until I picked the cut.'

You choose what you preferred. You had a free choice. But your buddy was coerced. Hehad to the pick what someone else preferred. It wasn't a free choice by any stretch of the imagination.

What's the difficulty in understanding that? I'm having a problem in understanding why you are pushing this discussion on coercion. Being forced to do something is the very opposite of having a free will choice.

The problem here is that having a high probability isn't the same as being predetermined, and in this case nuances matter. Coercion doesn't equal predetermination. In Proctor's case, and in my buddy's case they still have a choice. They may indeed be stupid to pick it, but they're still free to pick it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Being forced to do something is the very opposite of having a free will choice.

Just to be clear, coercion can't force you to do anything. It can make you highly motivated to do it, but it can't force you to do it. It's an error in reasoning to conclude that they're the same thing.

As an aside, I worked for a supervisor for 22 years who's management philosophy was that a supervisor only has three tools at his disposal to motivate his underlings... manipulation, intimidation, and coercion. He employed them quite freely.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm having a problem in understanding why you are pushing this discussion on coercion.

I'm simply trying to establish the fact that coercion, either positive or negative, doesn't equal predetermination. That's the hill that you seem to be preoccupied with dying on.

Give me some time and I'll clarify my understanding of free will, in which coercion becomes totally irrelevant.

 

[Bradskii]

I would argue that that which makes me 'me' is also that which makes my will.

I guess we could go with that. But 'you' are always changing. The obvious way is that you are getting older. You're obviously not the same person were when you were a child, or an adolescent, or teenager. In fact, males haven't got a fully developed pre frontal cortex until their early 20's. And that's where you make decisions.

And you'll make different decisions if your blood sugar is low. Or you're tired, or hungry, or drunk, or in love, or angry, or...countless other scenarios. Give someone a shot of dopamine or serotonin or adrenalin and they'll act differently. And their body will pump that stuff around automatically depending on the circumstances. You can't control that.

We all think there's only one 'me' and that we're always the same person. That isn't the case.

Had some friends around yesterday and next month myself plus one of them are meeting up with an old mate I haven't seen in a very long time. I came across some old photos clearing out the attic last week and there was one of me and this guy back in 1980. We'd just finished a meal in some classy restaurant and were lounging back in our chairs, drink in one hand and cigar in the other. I showed it to my friend and he said 'Ye God's, is that Rick? And who is the guy with him?' What? It's me, you idiot. He refused believe it. I had to call my wife over to confirm it. But to my eyes, it looks exactly like me. Of course it's me.

But it actually isn't. It's a guy in his late twenties, unmarried, no kids, full of spit and vinegar. 'My hands were steady, my eyes were clear and bright'. It's a different person to the one sitting here writing this. That other guy lives in the past. Where'd the years go, Bob?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm simply trying to establish the fact that coercion, either positive or negative, doesn't equal predetermination. That's the hill that you seem to be preoccupied with dying on.

Give me some time and I'll clarify my understanding of free will, in which coercion becomes totally irrelevant.

I think you're arguing against something I'm not arguing for. I agree that coercion is irrelevant. It's generally considered as forcing someone to act against their will. In which case they are definitely not making a free will decision. OR, as you say, 'coercion can't force you to do anything. It can make you highly motivated to do it'. In which case it becomes one of the antecedent conditions. The coercion is either determining your decision OR something else is.

It's nonsensical to say that either someone coerced you to choose or...you chose for no reason at all.

 

[partinobodycular]

I guess we could go with that. But 'you' are always changing. The obvious way is that you are getting older. You're obviously not the same person were when you were a child, or an adolescent, or teenager. In fact, males haven't got a fully developed pre frontal cortex until their early 20's. And that's where you make decisions.

I absolutely, positively agree, which is why we withhold culpability from certain individuals. However, free will is also an intrinsic part of our nature. Short of a full frontal lobotomy, it's one thing that we don't get to choose. Seemingly, Adam did it for us.

And you'll make different decisions if your blood sugar is low.

Having cared for two T1 diabetics in the years leading up to their deaths I know this very, very well.

We all think there's only one 'me' and that we're always the same person. That isn't the case.

Trust me, I'm well aware that there's more than one me in here. And my ability to forgive others stems directly from that fact. How can I judge the imperfections in others, without also condemning the imperfections in myself? And by the same token, how can I claim to have any good in me, if I refuse to recognize the good in others as well?

'My hands were steady, my eyes were clear and bright'. It's a different person to the one sitting here writing this. That other guy lives in the past. Where'd the years go, Bob?

Awesome song.

 

[Bradskii]

The problem here is that having a high probability isn't the same as being predetermined, and in this case nuances matter. Coercion doesn't equal predetermination. In Proctor's case, and in my buddy's case they still have a choice. They may indeed be stupid to pick it, but they're still free to pick it.

I keep saying this...making a choice does not equate to free will. You make choices whether free will exists or not. The choice will be the option that you prefer.

 

[Bradskii]

Trust me, I'm well aware that there's more than one me in here. And my ability to forgive others stems directly from that fact. How can I judge the imperfections in others, without also condemning the imperfections in myself? And by the same token, how can I claim to have any good in me, if I refuse to recognize the good in others as well?

I think it was only a dozen posts in when it was noted that the implications of no free will leads directly to the very Christ-like position of trying our best to forgive those who do us harm. That there but for the grace of God go we. That is, if you grew up in exactly the same scenario with the same DNA etc as the guy who steals your wallet, then you'd be the guy stealing it.

There's an all too natural reaction to that that says 'Oh, no. I'm different.' Well, yes. You are. But if the situations and conditions were different then you'd be a different person. I really don't get the argument that says 'Oh, no. I'd still be me'. That's dualism writ large. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Awesome song.

That slide lead by Rick Vito gets me every time.

 

[Fervent]

I have no idea what that means. Independent simply means that no prior conditions have had any influence. That nothing has determined your choice. The only example you have given shows that that is not the case. So unless you have another..?

Nope, independent doesn't require a complete lack of influence. It simply means that it isn't causally determined. Influences do not determine choices, they influence them. That's why we use two difference words.

Your "argument" is an entire circle, because you claim that we always choose what we prefer, but then you give no way to evaluate what someone prefers except after the fact and the only thing that determines that it was what was prefered is the choice. The only thing you're saying is that we always choose what we have chosen, which is the case whether determinism is true or genuine free will exists.

 

[partinobodycular]

I keep saying this...making a choice does not equate to free will.

When I think of free will, I think of something completely different from what you do. I don't think of a will that's free from any and all prior events, in fact I think of a will that's formed and forged by those prior events.

What I mean by free will is the capacity to make choices that go against what our primal animal instincts would have us do. That's what John Proctor did. He made a choice that only a self-reflective being could make. A choice that only a being with a sense of right and wrong... of ethics and morality could make. So the sense in which my will is free isn't that it's without cause, it's that it's without restriction to the serving of itself, in deference to what's right. It's free from a bondage to ignorance... because it knows right from wrong. That's the sense in which my will is free.

So yes, I regard my will as being free, and I don't care how it comes to be that way. Just as I don't care how I came to exist at all. The simple fact is that I do. And the simple fact is that I can choose to do what's right, and it doesn't matter why or how... all that matters is that I can.

That's what I think of when I think of free will, and no amount of coercion can ever change that. Like John Proctor I still have to make a choice between doing what I think is right, and not doing what I think is right. That choice is always going to be there, no matter how much coercion is placed before me.

Determinism may in fact be true, if so then it has my gratitude, but it doesn't change the fact that this thing that I perceive of as me, has the ability to not only perceive of right and wrong, but to willingly choose between them.

So @Bradskii, can you choose between right and wrong? Can you at least try? Good enough, you're on my list of beings with free will.

 

[Chesterton]

We all think there's only one 'me' and that we're always the same person. That isn't the case.

I think this is incorrect. Would you agree that if I plant an oak tree when it is one foot tall, it's still the same tree many years later when it's 30 feet tall? Same tree, it just changes. To say that you're not the same person is to imply that your genetic makeup has changed, and I don't think that happens. The DNA profile you have as a one-day-old baby is the same you will have as a 101 year old man. You're the same person, you just change.

 

[Fervent]

I think it was only a dozen posts in when it was noted that the implications of no free will leads directly to the very Christ-like position of trying our best to forgive those who do us harm. That there but for the grace of God go we. That is, if you grew up in exactly the same scenario with the same DNA etc as the guy who steals your wallet, then you'd be the guy stealing it.

There's an all too natural reaction to that that says 'Oh, no. I'm different.' Well, yes. You are. But if the situations and conditions were different then you'd be a different person. I really don't get the argument that says 'Oh, no. I'd still be me'. That's dualism writ large. It makes absolutely nonsense to me whatsoever.

That slide lead by Rick Vito gets me every time.

Who has ever made that argument? Have you actually encountered someone who argued that, or is this something you've imagined?

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, independent doesn't require a complete lack of influence. It simply means that it isn't causally determined. Influences do not determine choices, they influence them. That's why we use two difference words.

Well, one of the influences determined your choice. Obviously. You gave an example where that was the case. Do you have another where it wasn't?