Freewill and Souls

[Calminian]

Particularly for atheists:

Do you believe in freewill?

By freewill I mean incompatibilistic or libertarian freewill.

If so, how do you explain it apart from a non-material soul?

If not, aren't you admitting your opinions are the result of material determinism rather than rational reasoning?

 

[nadroj1985]

If not, aren't you admitting your opinions are the result of material determinism rather than rational reasoning?

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[us38]

Particularly for atheists:

Do you believe in freewill?

No.

If not, aren't you admitting your opinions are the result of material determinism rather than rational reasoning?

Yes. I may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[The Nihilist]

I am a determinist. I find it useful to think of the brain as a naturally-occuring computing machine. In this way, it's output is both materially determined and rationally reasoned.

 

[Calminian]

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

In a singularly deterministic world, concepts like reason, purpose and morality have no meaning. If all you do is caused by prior efficacious factors that are separate from you, then responsibility is separate from you also. There are no free choices based on reasons, but rather all are effects based on causes going all the way back to the first caused. Only in a multi-deterministic universe can responsibility fall on multiple agents. And only freewill could explain multi-determinism. Clear as mud?

 

[Calminian]

No.



Yes. I may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Honest atheism is always refreshing.

 

[Calminian]

I am a determinist. I find it useful to think of the brain as a naturally-occuring computing machine. In this way, it's output is both materially determined and rationally reasoned.

But how? Is a running computer program going through a reasoning process? If all you do is based on prior determining factors, where is reason taking place? All you do and believe is the result of mindless chemical reactions in your brain. Is there any part of you that has control over these processes? Or perhaps you believe the processes have control over themselves??

 

[David Gould]

In a singularly deterministic world, concepts like reason, purpose and morality have no meaning. If all you do is caused by prior efficacious factors that are separate from you, then responsibility is separate from you also. There are no free choices based on reasons, but rather all are effects based on causes going all the way back to the first caused. Only in a multi-deterministic universe can responsibility fall on multiple agents. And only freewill could explain multi-determinism. Clear as mud?

It is true that there is no such thing as responsibility. But I fail to see how determinism destroys reasons for action. Indeed, having free will destroys reasons for actions. If we want actions to be based on reasons, we have to hope that determinism is true.

 

[Calminian]

It is true that there is no such thing as responsibility.

But I fail to see how determinism destroys reasons for action.

I fail to see how you can fail to see.

Indeed, having free will destroys reasons for actions.

If we want actions to be based on reasons, we have to hope that determinism is true.

Wow. I have no clue what that means. This is the toll of atheism, I guess.

 

[The Nihilist]

But how? Is a running computer program going through a reasoning process? If all you do is based on prior determining factors, where is reason taking place? All you do and believe is the result of mindless chemical reactions in your brain. Is there any part of you that has control over these processes? Or perhaps you believe the processes have control over themselves??

What we call reasoning is mere computation, not substantially different from an abacus. Yes, all I do and believe is the result of mindless chemical reactions in my brain and external stimuli. It's silly to ask whether I have control over these processes, or whether they have control over themselves, because I am these processes.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you believe in freewill?

By freewill I mean incompatibilistic or libertarian freewill.

Of a sort.

If so, how do you explain it apart from a non-material soul?

Short answer: free will is an emergent property of human entities, just as conscious awareness is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[David Gould]

As you pointed out in your OP, if there is no free will, there is no responsibility. There is no free will.

I fail to see how you can fail to see.

The reason that I turn left is because I want to go to the shops. I am deterministically caused to turn left - because I do so for a reason.

If the things that I did were done for no reason, that would be indeterminism, not determinism.

Because reasons cause our actions. If they did not, they would not be reasons. If we have free will, then we can do things for no reason whatsoever. Thus, anything we do could just simply be random. It is fortunate that this does not appear to be the case.

Wow. I have no clue what that means. This is the toll of atheism, I guess.

If free will is true, nothing we do has reasons.
If determinism is true, everything we do has reasons.

 

[Upisoft]

As you pointed out in your OP, if there is no free will, there is no responsibility. There is no free will.

Give your definition of free will.

The reason that I turn left is because I want to go to the shops. I am deterministically caused to turn left - because I do so for a reason.

There is some determinism in us, but that is not always the case.

If the things that I did were done for no reason, that would be indeterminism, not determinism.

the things are not always 100% white or 100% black. We're mixture of determinism and indeterminism.

Because reasons cause our actions. If they did not, they would not be reasons.

Not only reasons. we have instincts, reactions. We get information from the outside word. So you basic premise is not valid.

If we have free will, then we can do things for no reason whatsoever.

Yes we can do things without reason.

Thus, anything we do could just simply be random.

If your idea for 100% black was true.

It is fortunate that this does not appear to be the case.

Finally I agree on something,

If free will is true, nothing we do has reasons.

Nope, start thinking again...

If determinism is true, everything we do has reasons.

Yes, the determinism itself should suffice as reason in this hypothetical case.

 

[David Gould]

Give your definition of free will.

I find free will incoherent, so I cannot really define it. To me, it is a square circle or a married bachelor - things that cannot be defined, because they cannot exist, being non-things.

However, the way people usually think of it is being able to make decisions that are not forced.

There is some determinism in us, but that is not always the case.

the things are not always 100% white or 100% black. We're mixture of determinism and indeterminism.

Not only reasons. we have instincts, reactions. We get information from the outside word. So you basic premise is not valid.

The reasons are formed from instincts and information from the outside world. I am unclear how this damages the premise.

Yes we can do things without reason.

Can you give me an example of someone doing something without reason?

If your idea for 100% black was true.

Finally I agree on something,

Nope, start thinking again...

I have done a lot of thinking on these issues. Can you give me a place to start?

Yes, the determinism itself should suffice as reason in this hypothetical case.

I am not sure what you are saying here, exactly.

 

[Upisoft]

I find free will incoherent, so I cannot really define it. To me, it is a square circle or a married bachelor - things that cannot be defined, because they cannot exist, being non-things.

Good one. First step: define it as non existent. Second step: prove it is non existent.
You have to give it some other definition, regardless what you think about its existence.

However, the way people usually think of it is being able to make decisions that are not forced.

In that case we don't need to go any further. People can make decisions that are not forced. It happens all the time.

The reasons are formed from instincts and information from the outside world. I am unclear how this damages the premise.

I will give you very simple example. You have a toy car that turns 90 degrees to the left when hits a barrier. That is very deterministic, isn't it? Can you predict how the car will behave in the furure? Let's say your prediction is:
It will go 1 meter until reaches the leg of the table, then it will turn 90 degrees to the left and go another 2 meters until reaches.... etc.... etc...
And you will be wrong, because it will go less than a meter until reaches my foot. What happened with your deterministic model? Well, it was not deterministic. You forgot to take the input into account. And the input is not deterministic.

Can you give me an example of someone doing something without reason?

Make double slit experiment with a electron gun. let an electron go through the double slit. The exact location where the electron will hit the screen will be without a reason. That, of course, is not very applicable on humans, unless you start dig deeper and reach neurons and how they are actually influenced by quantum effects.

I have done a lot of thinking on these issues. Can you give me a place to start?

I hope I gave you enough material to think about.

 

[David Gould]

Good one. First step: define it as non existent. Second step: prove it is non existent.

Did I define married bachelors as non-existent, or square circles? No: they cannot exist; they are non-concepts. In my opinion, free will is in the same category.

You have to give it some other definition, regardless what you think about its existence.

In that case we don't need to go any further. People can make decisions that are not forced. It happens all the time.

Can you give me an example?

I will give you very simple example. You have a toy car that turns 90 degrees to the left when hits a barrier. That is very deterministic, isn't it? Can you predict how the car will behave in the furure? Let's say your prediction is:
It will go 1 meter until reaches the leg of the table, then it will turn 90 degrees to the left and go another 2 meters until reaches.... etc.... etc...
And you will be wrong, because it will go less than a meter until reaches my foot. What happened with your deterministic model? Well, it was not deterministic. You forgot to take the input into account. And the input is not deterministic.

You are simply making a claim here. I will make a counter claim: the input is deterministic.

There - I win. See?

You are saying that human behaviour is not predictable. I would agree. However, that says nothing as to whether determinism and indeterminism is true.

Make double slit experiment with a electron gun. let an electron go through the double slit. The exact location where the electron will hit the screen will be without a reason. That, of course, is not very applicable on humans, unless you start dig deeper and reach neurons and how they are actually influenced by quantum effects.

I have studies physics and this particular experiment. I am unsure of its relevance. Quantum mechanics has been demonstrated to be indeterministic - truly random, in other word. I hope you are not suggesting that if human behaviour was random we would have free will?

I hope I gave you enough material to think about.

Unfortunately, I have seen all this before - as I said, lots of thinking - and reading, researching, writing - in this area. Still, always interesting to look at it again.

 

[Upisoft]

Did I define married bachelors as non-existent, or square circles? No: they cannot exist; they are non-concepts. In my opinion, free will is in the same category.

Well, I know of two definitions. They're quite different.

1st def. If it was possible to stop universe, make a copy and then run them bot in parallel, would I be able to do different things in the original universe and in the copy? If yes, then I have free will.

2nd def. To have ability to make choices that others cannot predict.

I'm using the first by default.

Can you give me an example?

You wrote above sentence without being forced to do that.

You are simply making a claim here. I will make a counter claim: the input is deterministic.

No, it isn't. Becaue the world is under the laws of quantum mechanics.

There - I win. See?

OK. Go for a biscuit.

You are saying that human behaviour is not predictable. I would agree. However, that says nothing as to whether determinism and indeterminism is true.

Determinism means that the future is fixed. And that is not the case.

I have studies physics and this particular experiment. I am unsure of its relevance.

It is very relevant. It shows that the furure is not fixed.

Quantum mechanics has been demonstrated to be indeterministic - truly random, in other word. I hope you are not suggesting that if human behaviour was random we would have free will?

Well, human behaviour may have some randomness. I'm not sure. That would require research how exactly quantum effects influence on brain function. Anyway, according my first definition of "free will", they will have it even if the behavoiur is trully random.

Unfortunately, I have seen all this before - as I said, lots of thinking - and reading, researching, writing - in this area. Still, always interesting to look at it again.

Anyway thinking without definition is waste of the time. Otherwise you just say: "No, there is no 'free will', because I think so".

 

[David Gould]

Well, I know of two definitions. They're quite different.

1st def. If it was possible to stop universe, make a copy and then run them bot in parallel, would I be able to do different things in the original universe and in the copy? If yes, then I have free will.

2nd def. To have ability to make choices that others cannot predict.

I'm using the first by default.

Fair enough. I use that one, too.

You wrote above sentence without being forced to do that.

No, I did not. My biology and my environment forced me to write that sentence.

No, it isn't. Becaue the world is under the laws of quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanical laws do not appear to operate at the macro level.

Further, even if they did, that would not help those who argue for free will.

OK. Go for a biscuit.

I had a chocolate one with a creamy centre.

Determinism means that the future is fixed. And that is not the case.

It is very relevant. It shows that the furure is not fixed.

Again, I do not see how this helps the case for free will.

Well, human behaviour may have some randomness. I'm not sure. That would require research how exactly quantum effects influence on brain function. Anyway, according my first definition of "free will", they will have it even if the behavoiur is trully random.

Does that seem satisfactory to you? If free will refers to complete randomness, where exactly does the will come into this? Either something is wrong with the definition or free will is not what we think it to be.

Anyway thinking without definition is waste of the time. Otherwise you just say: "No, there is no 'free will', because I think so".

I agree in a sense. The reason that we know that square circles do not exist is because of the definition of square and the definition of circle.

Similarly, the reason that I know that free will cannot exist is because of the definition of free and the definition of will.

Here is one my arguments:

1.) Any cause is either caused or uncaused. (from the law of the excluded middle).
2.) If a cause is caused, it is not free. (by definition)
3.) If a cause is uncaused, it is not willed. (again, by definition.)
4.) Hence, free will cannot exist.

 

[David Gould]

I should note here that because of quantum mechanics I am a practical determinist. By that I mean that for all intents and purposes the universe operates deterministically down a causal chain. Quantum mechanics simply introduces many causal chains that interact.

Free will would seem to posit something outside these causal chains. I cannot see how such a thing can be. The beginning of a causal chain must be uncaused; it cannot be willed. Anything in a causal chain must be caused; it cannot be free. And there are not other alternatives.

 

[Dragar]

David, you may as well just say that for pretty much every phenomena we are likely to encounter in our lives (unless you enjoy playing with diffraction gratings) are at length scales where quantum mechanics is almost perfectly approximation by Newtonian mechanics.

And physics of space and time as Newton laid out is deterministic (just as the physics of spacetime Einstein laid out is also deterministic).