Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

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.

I agree. We often make a decision because we think it's the right thing to do. I've no problem with that.

So @Bradskii, can you choose between right and wrong?

I can certainly decide what I think is right or wrong. 99% of the time we'd probably agree. Not having free will doesn't stop you having opinions. Why would it?

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Obviously I am still Bradskii, from the moment of my birth to the time of my death. I'm not saying that you you literally become someone else. Rather obviously I would have thought. But you are not the same person.

As Red says in Shawshank, the kid he was has long gone. How can we deny that?

 

[Bradskii]

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

It's been argued a couple of times in this thread. I won't give names, but one person most definitely said that he wouldn't burgle my house like some guy did even if he had exactly the same DNA, the same upbringing etc. I said that he would literally be that person. But it was emphatically denied. Apparently there was some Jim (named changed to protect him from being thought foolish) that somehow was able to inhabit a different body. That he wasn't subject to the material world. I guess he thought he had a soul, but the word was studiously avoided. It was classic dualism.

Now if he had actually said that God had created him and he'd be Jim whatever body he posessed, whatever life he had lived, then I'd have thanked him for his input and moved on. There'd be nothing I could say that would change his mind and there'd be nothing really there with which I could argue.

And it's what you are effectively arguing yourself. That you are separate from what happens around you. You can step outside of real life. That you can make decisions that aren't determined by anything at all.

You've only given one example and it showed that you are wrong. Maybe you'll think of another one.

 

[Fervent]

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?

Nope, the influences are taken into consideration and I made a choice by evaluating them. My choice depends on me making the choice, but once again you're using sloppy semantics and conflating meanings of "determined". The efficient cause of my decision was my willful decision.

 

[Fervent]

It's been argued a couple of times in this thread. I won't give names, but one person most definitely said that he wouldn't burgle my house like some guy did even if he had exactly the same DNA, the same upbringing etc. I said that he would literally be that person. But it was emphatically denied. Apparently there was some Jim (named changed to protect him from being thought foolish) that somehow was able to inhabit a different body. That he wasn't subject to the material world. I guess he thought he had a soul, but the word was studiously avoided. It was classic dualism.

Well, that's a bit surprising to me.

Now if he had actually said that God had created him and he'd be Jim whatever body he posessed, whatever life he had lived, then I'd have thanked him for his input and moved on. There'd be nothing I could say that would change his mind and there'd be nothing really there with which I could argue.

Ok

And it's what you are effectively arguing yourself. That you are separate from what happens around you. You can step outside of real life. That you can make decisions that aren't determined by anything at all.

Nope, I am an integrated whole that includes being able to willfully act as I choose with restriction. Does that include a partial transcendence? Sure, but I am not saying my body is not a part of who I am I am arguing that I cannot be reduced to a body. The choices are not either a fatalistic determinism or entire liberation from historic influences. Who I am is forged through my life, but I am in part charting my own course through the action of my free will.

You've only given one example and it showed that you are wrong. Maybe you'll think of another one.

Nope, it didn't show I was wrong. You simply continue to argue circularly and completely ignore that what determined(causally) my choice was my willingness to make that choice. It wasn't any of the influences involved, the buck stops with my will. And as soon as I am no longer willing to participate, I will stop participating. And that will be of my free will, not causally determined by antecedent conditions.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

I don't know if you're a fan of Doctor Who, but in the series, the Doctor keeps an old dog-eared diary documenting his life. It begins pristine and new, and then slowly becomes tattered and old, full of stories and notes, and drawings of the people he's met.

Think of your life like that diary. When it's new there's not much in it except a listing of your DNA, documenting what it physically means to be you. From the color of your eyes to your propensity to be shy. It's all there in that long strip of DNA. But it doesn't really know how to react to questions of morality or civility. In response to prior events it just cries, or sleeps, or poops. It doesn't really have anything that we could rightly call a 'will'. None-the-less it's you.

But time goes by and the entries in your diary grow. You develop a sense of the things that you like and the things that you don't. Yet it's still a work in progress, so prior events and DNA still dictate much of how you respond. But you've got the makings of a will, and more of a sense of what it means to be you. You're not there yet, but you're getting there.

At some point however the diary begins to fill up, such that the prior events that actually matter aren't the one's outside the diary or in the DNA, instead they're the ones inside the diary. They're the memories, and experiences, and sense of morality that truly define who you are. Those are the prior events that matter, and those prior events are you. You're not just a physical thing anymore, you're an intangible thing recorded in a diary that's your life.

So yes, you're still governed by prior events, but the prior events that matter are the ones in that diary... they're you. I have a will, and how I came to have that will doesn't really matter as much as the fact that I have it. Because thanks to wills men such as John Proctor can choose not to sign a paper.

There's a point at which I am what I am, and if I want to change, then I can change, even if it's only in the desire to do so, and nothing else. Ultimately I'll do me, and I'll gladly let you do you. But when it comes to will, and specifically free will, it's not something that comes whole and complete from inception. It grows, and so yes, it has a cause. Yet at some point what's inside that diary becomes more important than what's outside that diary... and what's inside that diary is you.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, the influences are taken into consideration and I made a choice by evaluating them.

Exactly right. And one or more of those influences determined you choosing the option that you preferred. Just like in the example you gave me.

 

[Fervent]

Exactly right. And one or more of those influences determined you choosing the option that you preferred. Just like in the example you gave me.

Nope, my will determined which influences I was going to allow to factor into my choice. I chose which voices to listen to. Not something choosing on my behalf.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, it didn't show I was wrong. You simply continue to argue circularly and completely ignore that what determined(causally) my choice was my willingness to make that choice. It wasn't any of the influences involved...

You said that you responded. Maybe I should quote the definition of that word again:

'...do something as a reaction to someone or something.'

I posted something and you reacted to it by posting something yourself. My post influenced your response. Maybe you could think of another example that doesn't confirm what I've been explaining to you.

 

[Fervent]

You said that you responded. Maybe I should quote the definition of that word again:

'...do something as a reaction to someone or something.'

I posted something and you reacted to it by posting something yourself. My post influenced your response. Maybe you could think of another example that doesn't confirm what I've been explaining to you.

My response couldn't exist without your post, but that doesn't mean your post played a causal role in my decision to respond. You're just conflating meanings, as is your usual MO. Reaction in the sense of a response is not the same as a mechanical reaction like gears turning. Influences are not causes, so demonstrating that your post is what provided context to my choice to respond doesn't show that it played a causal role.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, my will determined which influences I was going to allow to factor into my choice. I chose which voices to listen to. Not something choosing on my behalf.

I thought you said there were no influences...

Anyway, now that you've agreed that there were, you're right. You do have a will. As you've seen, there's been a discussion of it and how it relates to the self. We change over time and what we 'will' tends to change.

I assume that you mean that you have an internal discussion when you refer to 'voices'. I get that. Maybe a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. The guy with the pitchfork is saying 'Yeah, do it. You know you want to'. And the other guy says 'Well, it's what you want to do, but are you sure you prefer doing it?'

And then you choose. Based on one or more of the influences to which you've been exposed. They'll be the ones that determine your choice.

 

[Bradskii]

My response couldn't exist without your post, but that doesn't mean your post played a causal role in my decision to respond.

That makes no sense. I just read your post and it caused me to think about what you said and formulate a response. So I decided to reply. Your post is the reason why I'm typing this.

You did exactly the same. It's not as if you read what I'd written and your fingers were then somehow forced to start typing against your will. You made a decision to respond. And what caused you to make that decsion was reading what I'd written.

It's quite nonsensical to deny it.

 

[Fervent]

I thought you said there were no influences...

When did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth. Quote where you believe I said that, perhaps I can explain what it is that I meant.

Anyway, now that you've agreed that there were, you're right. You do have a will. As you've seen, there's been a discussion of it and how it relates to the self. We change over time and what we 'will' tends to change.

To an extent, but how that will changes depends on the choices that we make along the way. We create and reinforce our wills, but there is still freedom of the will. Determinism requires there be no freedom, so there is no room for a will.

I assume that you mean that you have an internal discussion when you refer to 'voices'. I get that. Maybe a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. The guy with the pitchfork is saying 'Yeah, do it. You know you want to'. And the other guy says 'Well, it's what you want to do, but are you sure you prefer doing it?'

Nope, I was being metaphorical. I can, to an extent, decide which influences are given priority be they emotions, rational thoughts, brain chemistry issues to be in control. I can succumb to my lower urges, or I can rise above. I am charting my course in life, though of course there are limitations.

And then you choose. Based on one or more of the influences to which you've been exposed. They'all be the ones that determine your choice.

Your misunderstanding what I mean by voices is unsurprising, but your explanation falls flat at demonstrating determinism even as you've presented it. You may not have free will, having submitted your will entirely to bodily impulses, but I know I have free will and am responsible for my choices. You are as well, as is anyone else who has given up their free will to philosophies that tell them their free will is an illusion because they at the very least made the free will decision to give in to that philosophy. If I have any say in believing I have free will, then I choose to believe in it. If you're right, I have no choice in the matter and it is deterministic forces outside of my control that have put me on this path. So I have no reason to even entertain the notion you might be right.

 

[Fervent]

That makes no sense. I just read your post and it caused me to think about what you said and formulate a response. So I decided to reply. Your post is the reason why I'm typing this.

That's different from deterministic causation.

You did exactly the same. It's not as if you read what I'd written and your fingers were then somehow forced to start typing against your will. You made a decision to respond. And what caused you to make that decsion was reading what I'd written.

Yeah, I made a decision. Of my own free will. It was not caused by the existence of your post. Your post simply provides the context of my decision.

It's quite nonsensical to deny it.

Good thing I don't deny the role it plays in my decision, it's simply that as you yourself admit your post didn't force me to start typing against my will the way if I jump off of something I am forced to the ground by gravity. Your position requires that I be forced through some unknown causative chains to type the exact response I type, so simply showing that there is a history to my decisions doesn't demonstrate that determinism is true.

 

[Bradskii]

When did I say that?

No so much no influences as 'no influences involved'. Which is pretty much the same thing.

It wasn't any of the influences involved...

To an extent, but how that will changes depends on the choices that we make along the way.

Of course. And why do you make those choices? Something causes you to change your mind. Unless you just do so randomly..?

Nope, I was being metaphorical. I can, to an extent, decide which influences are given priority be they emotions, rational thoughts, brain chemistry issues to be in control. I can succumb to my lower urges, or I can rise above. I am charting my course in life, though of course there are limitations.

Couldn't agree more.

Your misunderstanding what I mean by voices is unsurprising, but your explanation falls flat at demonstrating determinism even as you've presented it. You may not have free will, having submitted your will entirely to bodily impulses...

Nobody has said that. Or anything approaching that. But if that's what you think, no wonder you're confused.

...and am responsible for my choices.

Again, I couldn't agree more. A lack of free will doesn't absolve you of responsibility. You might recall a car accident I mentioned. Could I be blamed? Not really. Was I responsible? Most definitely. Guilty as charged, ma'am.

You are as well, as is anyone else who has given up their free will to philosophies that tell them their free will is an illusion because they at the very least made the free will decision to give in to that philosophy. If I have any say in believing I have free will, then I choose to believe in it.

You can't choose to believe anything. You are either convinced by the arguments or you are not. If you are then belief will follow. You can try it if you like. Let me know how you get on.

If you're right, I have no choice in the matter...

I'm going to have to put a sigh here. Sigh...

Do you know why it's there? You should. I mean you really should.

...and it is deterministic forces outside of my control that have put me on this path.

That would be true in any case. Just tell me anything you've done that wasn't determined by anything. The last example didn't. Do you want to try again?

 

[Bradskii]

That's different from deterministic causation.

No. Your post was the cause of me replying. You can't deny that. It was literally the reason I responded.

Yeah, I made a decision. Of my own free will. It was not caused by the existence of your post. Your post simply provides the context of my decision.

You're mangling the language.

'What's this post you wrote?'
'It's a response to one that Bradskii wrote'
'Why did you write it?'
'He said something with which I disagree so I wanted to correct him'
'If he hadn't written anything, then would you have responded?'
'Don't be ridiculous. Obviously not. There'd be nothing to respond to'
'So his post determined your response. It determined what you wrote back'
'Umm...'

Good thing I don't deny the role it plays in my decision, it's simply that as you yourself admit your post didn't force me to start typing against my will the way if I jump off of something I am forced to the ground by gravity.

Quite right.

Your position requires that I be forced through some unknown causative chains to type the exact response I type...

No. Not forced. You have a choice. But that choice will be determined by something. Like the example you gave earlier. Maybe you have another where your choice was not determined by anything. You're batting 0 for 1 so far. Want to try again?

 

[Fervent]

No so much no influences as 'no influences involved'. Which is pretty much the same thing.

Why did you not quote the post? What is it I said, not "pretty much", but actually?

Of course. And why do you make those choices? Something causes you to change your mind. Unless you just do so randomly..?

That's a question outside my ken. All I know is that I am not an automaton being dragged along by forces outside of me. I have the freedom to chart my path, which determinism denies.

Couldn't agree more.

Then you must deny determinism, because there can be no such ability if our choices are causally determined by antecedents.

Nobody has said that. Or anything approaching that. But if that's what you think, no wonder you're confused.

Do you or do you not believe that the reality of your decision making is ultimately nothing more than operations and processes within your physical brain? I work with entailments, often ones that go unrecognized, but entailments none the less.

Again, I couldn't agree more. A lack of free will doesn't absolve you of responsibility. You might recall a car accident I mentioned. Could I be blamed? Not really. Was I responsible? Most definitely. Guilty as charged, ma'am.

If you are not to blame, how are you responsible? They're essentially the same thing when it comes to moral questions.

You can't choose to believe anything. You are either convinced by the arguments or you are not. If you are then belief will follow. You can try it if you like. Let me know how you get on.

My experiences demonstrate this to be untrue. Though I will not cast my pearls before swine and elaborate on that.

I'm going to have to put a sigh here. Sigh...

Do you know why it's there? You should. I mean you really should.

Because you're the type who thinks you can have the cake you've eaten, and don't understand that you can't so my repetition of that argument is tiresome to you?

That would be true in any case. Just tell me anything you've done that wasn't determined by anything. The last example didn't. Do you want to try again?

Still with this tired routine, huh? Declare somethign that must be universally true is true, and then shift the burden onto your opponent rather than providing anything amounting to proof. Excellent strategy to maintain a false belief.

 

[Fervent]

No. Your post was the cause of me replying. You can't deny that. It was literally the reason I responded.

Oh? You had no say in it? It happened automatically? How did I acquire this power over you that you are compelled to reply to my posts?

You're mangling the language.

Nope, I'm pointing out that you're failing to work with singular defintions. You're playing a shell game where you take a word that can be understood in multiple ways, beginning with one meaning and then switching to an alternative.

'What's this post you wrote?'
'It's a response to one that Bradskii wrote'
'Why did you write it?'
'He said something with which I disagree so I wanted to correct him'
'If he hadn't written anything, then would you have responded?'
'Don't be ridiculous. Obviously not. There'd be nothing to respond to'
'So his post determined your response. It determined what you wrote back'
'Umm...'

The silliness of you making up an exchange aside, I wouldn't say "umm", I would point out that while my response was informed by his post what determined my response was my understanding and my inclination to participate in online discussions. The original post determined nothing, it provided the context.

Quite right.

No. Not forced. You have a choice. But that choice will be determined by something. Like the example you gave earlier. Maybe you have another where your choice was not determined by anything. You're batting 0 for 1 so far. Want to try again?

Still relying on that shell game of relying on multiple meanings to change what you're saying. If my choices were determined in the way that determinism requires, it would be exactly like gravity just with multiple steps. There is no choice involved under determinism, and you've done nothing to actually show that that is the case with decisions but instead have been arguing the opposite. So I'll take my decision making at face value, even if I don't understand how it works, and deny that determinism is true because of my experiences of making free will decisions.

 

[Bradskii]

Why did you not quote the post?

I did.

That's a question outside my ken.

You don't know why you chose something? You must know how ridiculous thatsounds.

My experiences demonstrate this to be untrue.

You decided to believe something without being convinced by the evidence? This will be a first in human history. You have to tell us what it was.

Still with this tired routine, huh?

I'm just pointing our that the only example you have given of a decision being made actually included the reason why you made it. If that's the only one that you're prepared to give then...you've dismantled your own position.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh? You had no say in it? It happened automatically? How did I acquire this power over you that you are compelled to reply to my posts?

There's no compelling involved. You seem to not understand this. I decided to respond. What you said caused me to respond. If it's raining I'll decide not to go to the beach. The rain determined my decision. It didn't compell me not go go.

...what determined my response was my understanding and my inclination to participate in online discussions.

So that was what determined your response. Nothing like a little more detail to explain what caused you to respond. Thanks for clearing that up.

There is no choice involved under determinism...

I'm going to have to sigh again.