Free will and determinism

[Jerry N.]

You need to read the OP again. It means exactly that.

Okay, I reread the OP, but I find the following to be circular reasoning: “But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different. “

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t believe it, but since you don’t believe in God, I would say The Big Bang.

Don't be trite.

In the first instance we simply don't know what happened in the earliest moments of the BB, so you are left with a conclusion of 'Unknown'. Not 'Disproved'.

In the second instance we are talking about the macro world in the here and now. Conditions that prompt you to get married, pull a trigger, go to the gym ot the bar. Tea or coffe. Steak or fish.

Don't waste valuable bandwith, your time and, more importanty, mine in such nonsense.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, I reread the OP, but I find the following to be circular reasoning: “But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different. “

It's a standard argument for my position. You'll find variations on that theme wherever there are discussions of free will.

It's not circular. It's that the logic counters very deeply held beliefs. And I'd suggest that your initial reaction was, and still is 'But no, that just can't be right'. The thread is replete with such comments.

May I suggest that you try to counter the logic. Possibly just as an exercise to see where it goes.

 

[Jerry N.]

Don't be trite.

In the first instance we simply don't know what happened in the earliest moments of the BB, so you are left with a conclusion of 'Unknown'. Not 'Disproved'.

In the second instance we are talking about the macro world in the here and now. Conditions that prompt you to get married, pull a trigger, go to the gym ot the bar. Tea or coffe. Steak or fish.

Don't waste valuable bandwith, your time and, more importanty, mine in such nonsense.

I don’t mean to be trite or waste time, but you did ask for something that did not have a first cause or input. It does point out the problem with your OP, because the inputs can always be explained as “unknown,” and they can be used to dispel free-will. It is the basic problem with the butterfly effect, because it assumes that every chain of inputs produces an effect that extends forever.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t mean to be trite or waste time, but you did ask for something that did not have a first cause or input. It does point out the problem with your OP, because the inputs can always be explained as “unknown,” and they can be used to dispel free-will.

The inputs are almost always unknown. What difference does that make? Absolutely none. Your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to show an output that demonstrably had no input whatsoever. Your first attempt didn't succeed (and you had to go back almost 15 billion years to think of an example). Try to find one a tad more recent.

It is the basic problem with the butterfly effect, because it assumes that every chain of inputs produces an effect that extends forever.

Nobody has concerned themselves with chains of events that stop. Because they're not relevant. You might suggest that if a rock rolls down a hill it will eventually come to a stop. And..?

 

[Jerry N.]

It's a standard argument for my position. You'll find variations on that theme wherever there are discussions of free will.

It's not circular. It's that the logic counters very deeply held beliefs. And I'd suggest that your initial reaction was, and still is 'But no, that just can't be right'. The thread is replete with such comments.

May I suggest that you try to counter the logic. Possibly just as an exercise to see where it goes.

It is not the logic that is my main problem, it is the premises. The phrase, “free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events” presupposes the results. Now if you wrote “free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are primarily determined by prior events but not entirely,” I would agree. Your definition of free-will excludes the possibility that there can be a mix of both prior events and self determination. That is the premise that is the foundation of your argument, and you have not given evidence that this premise is true. You only start with that assumption.

 

[Jerry N.]

The inputs are almost always unknown. What difference does that make? Absolutely none. Your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to show an output that demonstrably had no input whatsoever. Your first attempt didn't succeed (and you had to go back almost 15 billion years to think of an example). Try to find one a tad more recent.

Nobody has concerned themselves with chains of events that stop. Because they're not relevant. You might suggest that if a rock rolls down a hill it will eventually come to a stop. And..?

I didn’t think that the passage of time negates an example. The reason why the stopping of the chain of events is important is because it limits the number of inputs you can claim leads to outcomes. There is no way one can claim that every preference is the result of inputs if you don’t know what are those inputs. It is just a premise without support. Additionally, you have deleted the metaphysical from the discussion because it is not understood. So you have millions of unknown inputs from the physical and possibly millions of inputs from the metaphysical and come to the conclusion that these unknown inputs negate free will after stating that the mere existence of prior events negates free will.

 

[Bradskii]

It is not the logic that is my main problem, it is the premises. The phrase, “free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events” presupposes the results.

It's one of the common definitions of free will. From AI:

Free will is the capacity for individuals to make voluntary, independent choices among various courses of action without external coercion or prior deterministic causes.

Note the precise wording: '...without external coercion or deterministic causes.'

From Britanica:

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe'

Again: '...independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

'...the ability to act and make choices independent of any outside influence:'

What is presupposes is not the conclusion but one of the premises. As I said in the OP: '...if existence is deterministic...' I can't prove that it is, just like I can't prove that all swans are white. It's an inductive argument. But you can easily disprove it. Feel free to do so.

Now if you wrote “free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are primarily determined by prior events but not entirely,”

Well, if you redefine it as such then you are bound to win your argument. But what you are saying there is that prior events or causes don't necessarily deny free will. So you're saying that something else comprises free will.

Well, off you go and tell us what it is.

 

[Bradskii]

I didn’t think that the passage of time negates an example.

It doesn't. But at least try to find a contemporary example...

The reason why the stopping of the chain of events is important is because it limits the number of inputs you can claim leads to outcomes.

I'm not claiming that any number is required. We'd never know how many there could be in any case. They are effectively without limit. So what? The proposition is that there is no effect without a cause (or causes, to be more specific). Some will be more important than others but the numbers aren't relevant.

There is no way one can claim that every preference is the result of inputs if you don’t know what are those inputs.

I am claiming that. I do not know of any effect without a cause. On that assumption, if that claim is correct then as per the OP, free will does not exist. Now you either accept that deterministic claim and adress compatibilism or somehow support incompatibilsm OR you deny determinism by pointing to a single example which you proves it wrong. And we both know that you don't have one. Nobody does.

It is just a premise without support.

Apart from existence itself.

Additionally, you have deleted the metaphysical from the discussion because it is not understood. So you have millions of unknown inputs from the physical and possibly millions of inputs from the metaphysical and come to the conclusion that these unknown inputs negate free will after stating that the mere existence of prior events negates free will.

So your argument is that free will exists because there may be aspects of of existence that we don't understand and possible metaphysical inputs of which we are unaware. Possible metaphysical inputs? What? You just made that up. Why not say that we have free will because there might be a mini me in the ether guiding our decisions. Why not offer a soul for consideration?

Let's at least try to keep this a serious conversation. Heaven knows it's hard enough as it is.

 

[Jerry N.]

It's one of the common definitions of free will. From AI:

Free will is the capacity for individuals to make voluntary, independent choices among various courses of action without external coercion or prior deterministic causes.

Note the precise wording: '...without external coercion or deterministic causes.'

From Britanica:

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe'

Again: '...independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

'...the ability to act and make choices independent of any outside influence:'

What is presupposes is not the conclusion but one of the premises. As I said in the OP: '...if existence is deterministic...' I can't prove that it is, just like I can't prove that all swans are white. It's an inductive argument. But you can easily disprove it. Feel free to do so.

Well, if you redefine it as such then you are bound to win your argument. But what you are saying there is that prior events or causes don't necessarily deny free will. So you're saying that something else comprises free will.

Well, off you go and tell us what it is.

I admit that your definition of free will presupposes that free will doesn’t exist, but it has no practical function except to deflect from responsibility for choices and actions. Free will is to look at the options available, consider the possible outcomes or not, and take responsibility for the results. However, this is closer to the free-will in religious or sociological contexts, not a philosophical tautology.

Now, it is time for bed, so I’ll leave it for tomorrow.

It's one of the common definitions of free will. From AI:

Free will is the capacity for individuals to make voluntary, independent choices among various courses of action without external coercion or prior deterministic causes.

Note the precise wording: '...without external coercion or deterministic causes.'

From Britanica:

'free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe'

Again: '...independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

'...the ability to act and make choices independent of any outside influence:'

What is presupposes is not the conclusion but one of the premises. As I said in the OP: '...if existence is deterministic...' I can't prove that it is, just like I can't prove that all swans are white. It's an inductive argument. But you can easily disprove it. Feel free to do so.

Well, if you redefine it as such then you are bound to win your argument. But what you are saying there is that prior events or causes don't necessarily deny free will. So you're saying that something else comprises free will.

Well, off you go and tell us what it is.

I admit that your definition of free will presupposes that free will doesn’t exist, but it has no practical function except to deflect from responsibility for choices and actions. Free will is to look at the options available, consider the possible outcomes or not, and take responsibility for the results. However, this is closer to the free-will in religious or sociological contexts, not a philosophical tautology.

Now, it is time for bed, so I’ll leave it for tomorrow.

 

[Jerry N.]

It doesn't. But at least try to find a contemporary example...

I'm not claiming that any number is required. We'd never know how many there could be in any case. They are effectively without limit. So what? The proposition is that there is no effect without a cause (or causes, to be more specific). Some will be more important than others but the numbers aren't relevant.

I am claiming that. I do not know of any effect without a cause. On that assumption, if that claim is correct then as per the OP, free will does not exist. Now you either accept that deterministic claim and adress compatibilism or somehow support incompatibilsm OR you deny determinism by pointing to a single example which you proves it wrong. And we both know that you don't have one. Nobody does.

Apart from existence itself.

So your argument is that free will exists because there may be aspects of of existence that we don't understand and possible metaphysical inputs of which we are unaware. Possible metaphysical inputs? What? You just made that up. Why not say that we have free will because there might be a mini me in the ether guiding our decisions. Why not offer a soul for consideration?

Let's at least try to keep this a serious conversation. Heaven knows it's hard enough as it is.

I mention the metaphysical because the influence of love has been mentioned several times.

 

[Fervent]

I am claiming that. I do not know of any effect without a cause. On that assumption, if that claim is correct then as per the OP, free will does not exist. Now you either accept that deterministic claim and adress compatibilism or somehow support incompatibilsm OR you deny determinism by pointing to a single example which you proves it wrong. And we both know that you don't have one. Nobody does.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant(you), and since all you can supply is queston begging assumptions your assertion of determinism can be dismissed without consideration. It doesn't need to be challenged until you provide discrete evidence, which your attempts to affirm the consequent doesn't accomplish.

 

[Bradskii]

I admit that your definition of free will presupposes that free will doesn’t exist...

No, it presupposes that determinism exists. That free will then doesn't exist is the logical conclusion to that (unless you want to head into the weeds with compatibilism).

...but it has no practical function except to deflect from responsibility for choices and actions.

Pretty much. The only difference it makes is coming to terms with personal responsibility. That's the hard part. But that comes at the end of the process. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we must responsible agents therefore free will must exist. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Bradskii]

I mention the metaphysical because the influence of love has been mentioned several times.

Love is an antededent condition. A pretty important one obviously. But one over which you have no control.

 

[Fervent]

No, it presupposes that determinism exists.

Not to be pedantic, but determinism doesn't "exist" it either obtains or it doesn't. And if we take your premise which seems to be a conditonal like this:

If strict determnism is true, then free will is an illusion.

We could easily employ a modus tollens by holding that free will is not an illusiion, so we must conclude that strict determinism does not obtain.

That free will then doesn't exist is the logical conclusion to that (unless you want to head into the weeds with compatibilism).

The conclusion isn't logical, it's absurd. Free will is a central component of rationality. That your entire case is a Russian nesting doll of fallacious moves simply highlights the absurdity of it. And since you are in the habit of refusing to engage with the criticisms of your "logical" procedures and instead want to act like a pigeon playing chess we can only conclude that you are either dishonest in your engagement or deficient in your reasoning capacities.

 

[Neogaia777]

Free will/will/choices still matter because none of us knows anything about the distant or immediate future or what it's supposed to be. And I want you all to really, really think about that for a moment, the fact that we don't know, because it changes things, etc.

And the evidence for determinism is the myriad of scientists who think and can pretty much prove that everything in the macro world is deterministic.

 

[Neogaia777]

Free will/will/choices still matter because none of us knows anything about the distant or immediate future or what it's supposed to be. And I want you all to really, really think about that for a moment, the fact that we don't know, because it changes things, etc.

And the evidence for determinism is the myriad of scientists who think and can pretty much prove that everything in the macro world is deterministic.

But it can be said about the past though, that that was exactly the way it was always meant/supposed to happen, and there was never teally any other real possibility of it ever happening or going any other way, etc. But the future is still open because of our not ever knowing it yet ever, etc. Not ever knowing how it is ever supposed to happen or go/be, etc.

 

[childeye 2]

I don’t have any problem with your logic, if you include moral “input.” The moral side of the decisions we make are based on a responsibility to the source of those moral standards and love. The moral imperatives can be refused, leading to the need for mitigation of the source of the standards. God, being the ultimate source of those standards, requires obedience out of fear or love. However, this thought experiment from Bradskii is trying to determine if free will is possible with the millions of deterministic inputs without considering the influence of God. I think his basic premises are incorrect, and humans (maybe higher animals) can ignore inputs and make some free will choices. Bradskii assumes that only one preference is possible, and I think the assumption is incorrect.

The road‑system analogy is flawed, but is is assumed that God made it.

To me the op frames determinism as a universal causal phenomenon, which it indeed is; forcing the meaning of free will into a neutral meaning qualified as any choice that was not caused by being alive. Free will is an event in that frame, NOT a will.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Yes. And states the galactically obvious point that if something is random then there is obviously no connection with free will.

It's only random because no one including the poser of the observation can pin it down amongst the gazillions of possible inputs.

I appreciate the observation. I don't appreciate the conclusions.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Bradskii @BelieveItOarKnot

The only way a choice, or anything at all, can be truly random under the theory or teaching of determinism, is only if it has absolutely no prior inputs/causal factors influencing or determining it, which would take us all the way back to the very first "thing/cause" before the BB probably, which none of us knows about what was or might have been before that then, or even the way it would operate or even happen, since we cannot even imagine a thing not having any prior casual influences, or determining factors, etc. So, please stop calling certain things in this reality random, when you know they are not, ok. It's not only incorrect, but it's also very poor language to use if your try to show/convince others of determinism, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.