Confused about free will

[The Pixie]

Can anyone help me here? What is free will? How can I tell if I have free will? How can I tell if you have free will?

I have posted about this on another forum (ARN), but with very little response, so I am wondering what the people here think. Most of this is copy-and-pasted from there. My apologies if this is something that comes up every two weeks; I had a quick search, and there was nothing that recent judging from the thread titles.

Free will and what I had for breakfast

William Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" diffentiates between chance, necessity and intelligence, and this would seem to point free will away from determinism and from chance.

So I pose this question: How do you choose what you will eat for breakfast? Does the choice involve free will?

A determinstic explanation: In the deterministic view, the mind/brain acts like a computer, following a set of rules, and so will always reach the same outcome from a particular starting point. When deciding what to have for breakfast, I consider the pros and conds of each alternative, to establish a score for each one, and go with the highest score (of course, I do not do this formally; it is just going on in my subconscious). The factors to consider are what is available in the cupboard, how long will it take to make and eat, how healthy is it, how much do I like the taste and perhaps others. Usually I get the same answer, but sometimes the situation changes; I have run out of milk, so the cereal option becomes very low scoring.

Consider a chance explanation: The collapse of quantum wavefunctions occurs entirely at random, and the decision about what to have for breakfast ultimately rests of how a wavefunction collapses. A more complete explanation might acknowledge other factors, such as what food is available,

Do either of these involve free will? If not, then free will involves choosing for no reason, but not at random. And what does that mean?

Unpredictable = free will?

Maybe free will merely means not predictable. I am sure I make decisions that no one else could predict, because no one else understanding what importance I attach to the various factors I consider when making a decision. Play a computer game, and usually there are some random - unpredictable - aspects to it, if only to make the experience varied when you play it again. But the computer is entirely deterministic. Unpredictable does not imply free will.

There is no way to predict when an atom of cobalt-60 will decay - as far as we know it is random. But I do not think the cobalt-60 atom has free will nor that its decay is under the control of some intelligent agent with free will.

Getting from A to B

Suppose we have a robot without free will and a person with free will, both trying to get from A to B. The robot evaluates the cost, the time and the effort of the available choices, perhaps taking into consideration the environment factor, and determines the bus is the optimum method. One "cause" for that determination is the difficulty of finding a parking place at the destination, and another "cause" is the long time to walk there. The person makes a choice based on the cost, the time and the effort of the available choices, perhaps taking into consideration the environment factor. He decides to take the bus. One "reason" for that decision is the difficulty of finding a parking place at the destination, and another "reason" is the long time to walk there.

[Johnny MacManky]

So, both the robot without free will and the human are sitting side by side on the bus when the bus gets stuck in traffic. The human decides to get off and walk because it might be quicker. What should the robot do?

As the human walks along, someone is walking towards them. The human can move to either their right or left to avoid bumping into the other person. Which do they do and why? Why do they not move the other way?

As I type this, I hesitate to think, what will I say in conclusion? As I think, I tap my fingers in a rthymn on the keyboard... :tap: Should I tap a fast or slow pattern? Should I tap a different pattern? :tap: Will I tap pinkie first, or forefinger first... or a varying "random" pattern? Do I even have control over these "choices" if I'm not ever really planning them as I go? Will I ever be able to stop tapping in rthymn? :tap:

Yeah, I think I'll stop now... but did I choose to stop, or ...

[themuzicman]

The problem is that free will cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect, because the will, if ti is free, must be an uncaused causer.

Now, the causer is able to consider influences, but none of those things determine what the free will does.

Michael

[The Pixie]

Hi lilMankyScotsGit

So, both the robot without free will and the human are sitting side by side on the bus when the bus gets stuck in traffic. The human decides to get off and walk because it might be quicker. What should the robot do?
Did the human have some reason to change his mind? Well, yes, the bus was stuck in traffic. The human was merely reacting to external conditions. Is that free will?

As the human walks along, someone is walking towards them. The human can move to either their right or left to avoid bumping into the other person. Which do they do and why? Why do they not move the other way?
Is it random? Is there a reason they move the way they do? Or is it free will?

As I type this, I hesitate to think, what will I say in conclusion? As I think, I tap my fingers in a rthymn on the keyboard... Should I tap a fast or slow pattern? Should I tap a different pattern? Will I tap pinkie first, or forefinger first... or a varying "random" pattern? Do I even have control over these "choices" if I'm not ever really planning them as I go? Will I ever be able to stop tapping in rthymn?

Yeah, I think I'll stop now... but did I choose to stop, or ...
Are you saying that free will is equivalent to having a choice? I am quite happy with the idea that we can make choices, I am just not clear whether that implies free will. If I make a choice for a reason, then that would imply my choice was deterministic. I would say that the robot chose to catch the bus.

Hi Michael

The problem is that free will cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect, because the will, if ti is free, must be an uncaused causer.
Yes, that is a good way of putting it.

Now, the causer is able to consider influences, but none of those things determine what the free will does.
So how do I know if I have fre will and my choices are merely influenced by external factors or whether I only have the illusion of free will, and my choices are actually determined by external factors?

By external factors I include the sum of all my experiences to date, plus genetic propensities. The robot reaches the decision to go by bus based on its past experiences of transport (etc.), plus any bias in its software and hardware. Why should I believe I am different?

[themuzicman]

Hi Michael

Yes, that is a good way of putting it.

So how do I know if I have fre will and my choices are merely influenced by external factors or whether I only have the illusion of free will, and my choices are actually determined by external factors?

I'm not sure there is a natural proof for this.


By external factors I include the sum of all my experiences to date, plus genetic propensities. The robot reaches the decision to go by bus based on its past experiences of transport (etc.), plus any bias in its software and hardware. Why should I believe I am different?

I think the best evidence is our ability to choose against the influences in our lives. A drug addict, in spite of the culture and demands of his body, refuses to do drugs, and breaks his addiction. People do things that offend their culture and put themselves in danger to bring about change of an injustice...



But probably nothing conclusive.

Free will becomes more apparent from within Christianity, where God creates beings in order to engage in a loving relationship with them. THat would require free will.

Michael

[Minnesota]

Free will is commonly taken to mean one of two things.


1. The will is uncaused. That is, when I choose something there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is making me select one alternative over another. That while the rest of the events in the universe may be determined, the will is an exception.

2. Everything in the universe, including our choices are determined; however, because we want to differentiate those events we "freely choose" from all other events in the universe, "free will" will denote those choices---determined though they may be---that are uncoerced by influences external to oneself.

Of course meaning #2 is simply a matter of fudging the notion of "free": free of coercion by influences external to oneself.

In actuality, there are only two kinds of events: those that are caused and those that are completely and unqualifiedly random. So far such random events have only been detected on the subatomic level. This means that "free will" in the sense of #1 does not exist.

As far as "free will" meaning unpredictability, one could say that if they wished, but again this is playing with the notion of "free." And, of course, a person can define "free will" any way they want, but this hardly sheds light on the issue. If you want to talk about a term then you have to decided on its meaning. Defining free will as unpredictability says nothing about determinism, the common antithesis of free will.

So, is there free will? Under meaning #1, No. Under meaning #2,Yes. Under meaning #3 (unpredictability), Yes. Under meaning #4 (the color blue), Yes. Under meaning # . . . . . . . .

[themuzicman]

As an atheist, this might be fine for you, but for theists, I think we would view God as an uncaused causer, who has purpose (and not randomness), but yet is not under determinism.

The problem for the atheist, of course, is that he can only see things from a naturalistic point of view, which can only see cause and effect.

Michael

[Minnesota]

As an atheist, this might be fine for you, but for theists, I think we would view God as an uncaused causer, who has purpose (and not randomness), but yet is not under determinism.
I assume by "is not under determinism" you mean that god's actions are not determined: caused. If so, how does he decide what ever he decides? And I agree that purpose does not entail randomness, :shrug:


The problem for the atheist, of course, is that he can only see things from a naturalistic point of view, which can only see cause and effect.So help out the atheist. How can he see things otherwise? And, of course, simply asserting that god does or is X , carries no weight. What point of view is necessary see that events are not "cause/effect"?


BTW, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

[themuzicman]

I assume by "is not under determinism" you mean that god's actions are not determined: caused. If so, how does he decide what ever he decides? And I agree that purpose does not entail randomness, :shrug:

More accurately, God's actions aren't determined by anything other than His own Will.


So help out the atheist. How can he see things otherwise? And, of course, simply asserting that god does or is X , carries no weight. What point of view is necessary see that events that are not "cause/effect"?

TO be honest, I don't know. I still struggle to see how the atheist view is anything other than Machiavellian.



BTW, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

Close enough. :wink:

Michael

[Minnesota]

More accurately, God's actions aren't determined by anything other than His own Will. And this is the crux of the god/free will issue: If his actions are determined by his will, what guides his will? or is his will simply a random machine at work? As I see it, and explained above, there are only two kinds of events, those that have a cause and those that are completely random. If god's will is not willy-nilly randomness at play then it must have be based on something else, and this basis then operates as the cause his decisions. If god's decisions, the result of his will, lack cause then by default they have to be random. Unless, that is, you have a third alternative in mind.



TO be honest, I don't know. I still struggle to see how the atheist view is anything other than Machiavellian.
Interesting that you see atheistic belief as essentially malevolent.



Close enough. :wink:

MichaelThen I assume calling you a Muslim is close enough :wink:

[themuzicman]

And this is the crux of the god/free will issue: If his actions are determined by his will, what guides his will? or are his decisions completely random? As I see it, and explained above, there are only two kinds of events, those that have a cause and those that are completely random. If god's will is not willy-nilly randomness at play then it must have be based on something else, and this basis then operates as the cause his decisions. If god's decisions, the result of his will, lack cause then by default they have to be random. Unless, that is, you have a third alternative in mind.

You said earlier that you acknowledged purpose, and I think that's the key. Purpose isn't cause, because we can determine whatever purposes we wish to pursue, and those uncaused purposes help give direction to subsequent action. I would agree that free will without purpose would probably be quite random.


Interesting that you see atheistic belief as essentially malevolent.

I didn't say malevolent. Just Machiavellian.


Then I assume calling you a Muslim is close enough :wink:

lol..

Michael

[Minnesota]

You said earlier that you acknowledged purpose, and I think that's the key. Purpose isn't cause, because we can determine whatever purposes we wish to pursue, and those uncaused purposes help give direction to subsequent action. But all purposes---goals to be attained---have a cause. We don't arrive at goals out of thin air. So I need an example of an "uncaused purpose."




I didn't say malevolent. Just Machiavellian.

Machiavellian

1: of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism
2: suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
(Merriam-Webster)

[The Pixie]

Minnesota

Free will is commonly taken to mean one of two things....
Yes, that is pretty much how I see it.

Michael

As an atheist, this might be fine for you, but for theists, I think we would view God as an uncaused causer, who has purpose (and not randomness), but yet is not under determinism.
The God as an uncaused causer thing is a whole different question. If we suppose God, then that seems quite reasonable.

But then, are God's actions in part influenced by the material world? The Bible says yes (eg sending Jesus).

Are God's actions determined by his own "development"? Presumably God is not unchanging; something make him create the universe. At one time His mental state was such that he did not want a universe, that mental state changed so that he did want a universe, and he subsequently created one.

[Philosophickle]

Pixie, this is what has been called the "Randomness Objection" to libertarian free will. To get down to brass tacks, this is by far the most difficult problem for libertarians to face. Doesn't mean that there can be no good answer, but as of yet most have been lackluster. However...

I see it as a choice between two problematic positions. On one hand, it appears that any non-libertarian position destroys moral responsibility, and possibly more. On the other hand, the libertarian has the curse of trying to explain how an action can be reasons-based yet not caused by those reasons.

I think that, in the absence of a possible answer from the non-libertarian camp, I opt for libertarian free will and the problems it brings with it.

Hope that helps.

[Minnesota]

Pixie, this is what has been called the "Randomness Objection" to libertarian free will. To get down to brass tacks, this is by far the most difficult problem for libertarians to face. Doesn't mean that there can be no good answer, but as of yet most have been lackluster. However...

I see it as a choice between two problematic positions. On one hand, it appears that any non-libertarian position destroys moral responsibility, and possibly more. On the other hand, the libertarian has the curse of trying to explain how an action can be reasons-based yet not caused by those reasons.

I think that, in the absence of a possible answer from the non-libertarian camp, I opt for libertarian free will and the problems it brings with it.

Hope that helps.So we have two outcomes you say should govern one's decision as to which to accept:


1. Determinism is the best explanation of why events occurs.

2. Free will preserves our notion of moral responsibility.

To my way of thinking, determinism is the overriding position because explains how our world works, whereas free will only establishes a validity for our accountability, something humans have decided to add to the make up of the universe. Without the existence of humans the notion of free will is pretty useless. No humans = no need for moral responsibility. For moral responsibility to have any meaning there must be at least two interacting humans on earth. Take one away and moral responsibility becomes moot, and in effect removes your reason for choosing free will. So, where as acceptance of determinism stands on its ability best explain the universe, acceptance of free will is entirely dependent on the existence of two interacting humans, which to me is a far weaker reason. As much as it might be nice to establish a rock solid basis for free will, because its only function is to assert moral responsibility it pales in light of the function of determinism: to explain how and why events occur. One explains our apprehensions the other explains our "shoulds."

So, as appealing as moral responsibility is, its basis does not square with reality. All events above the subatomic level have causes. Reject cause and the only alternative is randomness. Therefore, as I see it, the driving forces for choosing come down to logical coherence and need. Which of them should govern our how we consider the human condition: our needs or logical coherence? I opt of the latter.

[Philosophickle]

So we have two outcomes you say should govern one's decision as to which to accept:


1. Determinism is the best explanation of why events occurs.

2. Free will preserves our notion of moral responsibility.

To my way of thinking, determinism is the overriding position because explains how our world works, whereas free will only establishes a validity for our accountability, something humans have decided to add to the make up of the universe.

Hmmm, I don't think I like how you redefined the debate. Becoming a libertarian does not all the sudden make all of reality random- most libertarians believe that the only non-determined aspects of our universe would be agents (humans, and God if you have that belief).


So, where as acceptance of determinism stands on its ability best explain the universe, acceptance of free will is entirely dependent on the existence of two interacting humans, which to me is a far weaker reason.

I don't think you've framed this correctly, but even then I would disagree with you. There is nothing I am more familiar with than my own mind/beliefs/experiences, so if the theory of a scientist tells me one thing and my mind another, my decision is easy.


So, as appealing as moral responsibility is, its basis does not square with reality. All events above the subatomic level have causes. Reject cause and the only alternative is randomness. Therefore, as I see it, the driving forces for choosing come down to logical coherence and need. Which of them should govern our how we consider the human condition: our needs or logical coherence? I opt of the latter.

Well, no libertarian would ever accept the dichotomy between determinism and randomness. Most would say that there is a direct contradiction between determinism and moral responsibility, whereas the randomness objection at least has prospective answers. And even if that looks dark, we can resort to our moral experiences to facilitate a rejection of determinism, of which the only alternative is libertarianism.

[Minnesota]

Hmmm, I don't think I like how you redefined the debate. Becoming a libertarian does not all the sudden make all of reality random- most libertarians believe that the only non-determined aspects of our universe would be agents (humans, and God if you have that belief).Not really debating, just putting the decision making into focus.




Well, no libertarian would ever accept the dichotomy between determinism and randomness.
Then they will have to explain how the will remains free of cause. If an event doesn't have a cause and it doesn't arise randomly then it comes about because________fill in the blank________ .




Most would say that there is a direct contradiction between determinism and moral responsibility, whereas the randomness objection at least has prospective answers. I agree, but such prospective answers could not include predictability or retain a sense of responsibility. How can one be held responsible for random occurring events, events one has no control over?




And even if that looks dark, we can resort to our moral experiences to facilitate a rejection of determinism, of which the only alternative is libertarianism.You can reject anything want for whatever reason you wish, but to my way of thinking, in this case it would be swapping logical coherency for the expediency of need. And I have to ask, how do moral experiences act to discredit determinism?

[Philosophickle]

Then they will have to explain how the will remains free of cause. If an event doesn't have a cause and it doesn't arise randomly then it comes about because________fill in the blank________ .

Well, that is not entirely accurate of a dichotomy. Many libertarians DO believe that events have causes- the human mind is the cause- but that not all causes themselves have causes. In this way they retain the principle of causation (events have causes) without reducing to mere determinism (causes have causes).


I agree, but such prospective answers could not include predictability or retain a sense of responsibility. How can one be held responsible for random occurring events, events one has no control over?

They couldn't, which is why many free willers are hesitant to congregate with indeterminancy. It seems like France is the only place producing libertarians that accept randomness. It isn't pretty either.


You can reject anything want for whatever reason you wish, but to my way of thinking, in this case it would be swapping logical coherency for the expediency of need. And I have to ask, how do moral experiences act to discredit determinism?

Well, for the last 200 years moral debates have focused on Immanuel Kant. In his writings we find the perhaps most readily accepted principle in academia, Kant's Maxim. Very simply, the maxim states that "ought implies can", where moral obligations are only obligations if a person is able to fulfill them. It really is impossible to square determinism away with such a principle.

[Tladatsi]

This is one of my pet peeves. People are forever confusing two entirely different, albeit related, concepts: "Ability to Choose" and "Free Will".

"Ability to Choose" means just what it sounds like, I am able to discern two (or more) choices and select at least one of them. If there is two fruits in front of me, an apple and an orange, I determine that they are different, and I can choose to eat (or throw or sit on) one or the other.

Here are dictionary definitions of "Will"

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: "the freedom of the will".
2. power of choosing one's own actions: "to have a strong or a weak will".
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: "My hands are obedient to my will".
4. wish or desire: "to submit against one's will".
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: "to have the will to succeed".
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: "to work one's will".
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.

Will is about what you want, desire, not what you are able to do. I may have the will to fly but I sadly lack the ability to bring my will to fruition.

Here I may desire apples but hate oranges. If presented with a choice of an apple or an orange, I will always choose the apple. It is my will to eat an apple and not to eat oranges. However, if apples are out of season, I am unable to exercise my will. If I need to eat fruit, I may have no choice but to eat an orange.

"Free Will" is thus the situation where one's will is free from external pressures or influences. There is an apple and orange in front of me, without any other considerations, I would choose the apple. However, now suppose some puts a gun to my head and says "If you eat the apple, I will shoot you to death". Now, my will is not free. I can choose to risk getting shot to exercise my will, but it is not a "free choice" but a choice made against duress. Most people would deny their own will and obey the will of the person holding the gun and not eat the apple. The same is true if some one offers my 1,000,000 USD if do not eat the apple. I really want that apple but wow, a million bucks. Who would not go against their will and not eat the apple.

"Free Will" has nothing to do with "randomness" or "predictability". I am entirely predictable and non-random, I always choose apples over oranges, every single time. That is my will. That my will is completely predictable does not make my will any less. That I might be able to choose to go against my own will for reasons of self-control, or bribery, or threat does not change what my will is.




Can anyone help me here? What is free will? How can I tell if I have free will? How can I tell if you have free will?

I have posted about this on another forum (ARN), but with very little response, so I am wondering what the people here think. Most of this is copy-and-pasted from there. My apologies if this is something that comes up every two weeks; I had a quick search, and there was nothing that recent judging from the thread titles.

Free will and what I had for breakfast

William Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" diffentiates between chance, necessity and intelligence, and this would seem to point free will away from determinism and from chance.

So I pose this question: How do you choose what you will eat for breakfast? Does the choice involve free will?

A determinstic explanation: In the deterministic view, the mind/brain acts like a computer, following a set of rules, and so will always reach the same outcome from a particular starting point. When deciding what to have for breakfast, I consider the pros and conds of each alternative, to establish a score for each one, and go with the highest score (of course, I do not do this formally; it is just going on in my subconscious). The factors to consider are what is available in the cupboard, how long will it take to make and eat, how healthy is it, how much do I like the taste and perhaps others. Usually I get the same answer, but sometimes the situation changes; I have run out of milk, so the cereal option becomes very low scoring.

Consider a chance explanation: The collapse of quantum wavefunctions occurs entirely at random, and the decision about what to have for breakfast ultimately rests of how a wavefunction collapses. A more complete explanation might acknowledge other factors, such as what food is available,

Do either of these involve free will? If not, then free will involves choosing for no reason, but not at random. And what does that mean?

Unpredictable = free will?

Maybe free will merely means not predictable. I am sure I make decisions that no one else could predict, because no one else understanding what importance I attach to the various factors I consider when making a decision. Play a computer game, and usually there are some random - unpredictable - aspects to it, if only to make the experience varied when you play it again. But the computer is entirely deterministic. Unpredictable does not imply free will.

There is no way to predict when an atom of cobalt-60 will decay - as far as we know it is random. But I do not think the cobalt-60 atom has free will nor that its decay is under the control of some intelligent agent with free will.

Getting from A to B

Suppose we have a robot without free will and a person with free will, both trying to get from A to B. The robot evaluates the cost, the time and the effort of the available choices, perhaps taking into consideration the environment factor, and determines the bus is the optimum method. One "cause" for that determination is the difficulty of finding a parking place at the destination, and another "cause" is the long time to walk there. The person makes a choice based on the cost, the time and the effort of the available choices, perhaps taking into consideration the environment factor. He decides to take the bus. One "reason" for that decision is the difficulty of finding a parking place at the destination, and another "reason" is the long time to walk there.

[Philosophickle]

Tladatsi, I am well aware of the differences in terminology, which is why I have been using the terms "libertarian" and "determinist". As far as I can tell, this external influences position, known as compatibilism, does nothing to alleviate the difficulties of determinism. I am willing to talk about it though.

[Minnesota]

Well, that is not entirely accurate of a dichotomy. Many libertarians DO believe that events have causes- the human mind is the cause- but that not all causes themselves have causes.Care to name a few? If they are not caused then from whence do they spring?



Tladatsi, I am well aware of the differences in terminology, which is why I have been using the terms "libertarian" and "determinist". As far as I can tell, this external influences position, known as compatibilism, does nothing to alleviate the difficulties of determinism.
And neither does it do away with the difficulty inherent in free will. The compatibilist wants it both ways, but this can only be accomplished by using "free" in two different senses. A no-no. And recall, the only "difficulty" determinism presents is that it does away with moral culpability, the bane of the compatibilist and why he takes the position he does. He close one eye when looking at determinism and closes the other when looking at free will. In essence he is playing a word game in order to sleep at night.

[shunyadragon]

The problem is that free will cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect, because the will, if ti is free, must be an uncaused causer.

Now, the causer is able to consider influences, but none of those things determine what the free will does.

Michael

This too simplistic to be real. Actually, free will can develop as an evolutionary survival mechanism for life. The greater ability to make decisions under different circumstance is a definite survival mechanism for and intelligent omnivore with a big brain called homo sapiens.

[Tladatsi]

Tladatsi, I am well aware of the differences in terminology, which is why I have been using the terms "libertarian" and "determinist". As far as I can tell, this external influences position, known as compatibilism, does nothing to alleviate the difficulties of determinism. I am willing to talk about it though.

I did not say you were not aware. I was responding to The Pixie who was confused on the issue. I was not responding to not you. The OP asked about "Free Will" and "Predictability". My point is that is possible to have free will and be completely predictable. If I always prefer, desire, will to eat apples and avoid oranges, that is my will. So long as one no influences that will, it is free. That my will is constant and unchanging does not mean it is not my will or that it is not free. My will is thus free and completely predictable.

Determinism is an entirely different issue. It goes to why I will what I will. Determinism would say that my will to eat apples and eschew oranges is result a number antecedent events and not "free". It might be that I was terribly traumatized as a youth by an angry orange welding bully but saved from that bully when he was hit in the head by my friend throwing an apple. My "will" is the result these events and their effect on my brain and mind. Moreover, human beings in general are genetically predisposed to desire sweet plant matter. We thus never "will" to eat acorns (except for those rare sweet ones) but always will to eat pomes or sweet citrus. My will is the result of the interaction between genetics and psychology.

However, whatever the source of my will, so long as my will is unconstrained by outside influences, it is free.

[themuzicman]

But all purposes---goals to be attained---have a cause. We don't arrive at goals out of thin air. So I need an example of an "uncaused purpose."

God creates the universe.


Machiavellian

1: of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism
2: suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
(Merriam-Webster)

Why is that bad to you?

Michael

[The Pixie]

Philosophickle

I see it as a choice between two problematic positions. On one hand, it appears that any non-libertarian position destroys moral responsibility, and possibly more. On the other hand, the libertarian has the curse of trying to explain how an action can be reasons-based yet not caused by those reasons.
As has been mentioned, there is some disagreement about the connection between free will and choice.

If we suppose for the moment that you can have choice, but not free will, does that allow moral responsibility? I think so, but must admit, I would find it hard to say why (so unless you disagree, I will not even try).

With regards to moral responsibility, what role does the environment play? A kid bought up in a rough area plagued with gangs is far more likely to turn to a life of crime that a kid raised in a good home in a good area. Does that reduce the moral responisibility of the first kid? I think it does, whether we allow free will or not. His choices are influenced by his background. So I think moral responsiblity has the same problems whether we accept free will or not, though necessarily to the same degree.

Minnesota


To my way of thinking, determinism is the overriding position because explains how our world works, whereas free will only establishes a validity for our accountability, something humans have decided to add to the make up of the universe. Without the existence of humans the notion of free will is pretty useless. No humans = no need for moral responsibility. For moral responsibility to have any meaning there must be at least two interacting humans on earth.
This is also true of a crowd or a conversation. Perhaps free will is an emergent property?

All events above the subatomic level have causes. Reject cause and the only alternative is randomness. Therefore, as I see it, the driving forces for choosing come down to logical coherence and need. Which of them should govern our how we consider the human condition: our needs or logical coherence? I opt of the latter.
Again, I find this unconvincing. A hundred years ago, you would not have qualified hat with "above the subatomic level"; it seemed that all events had causes. Science has since found actually some effects have no cause. Can we really be so sure of our knowledge that we can now claim for certainly that "All events above the subatomic level have causes"?

Tladatsi

This is one of my pet peeves. People are forever confusing two entirely different, albeit related, concepts: "Ability to Choose" and "Free Will".
Yes, I think this is part of my confusion. So would you say we could build a robot with the ability to choose, but lacking in free will? Or just consider the software that chose to retrieve this web page from the server to your PC by a certain route rather than any other. That would seem to have the ability to choose, but not free will.

"Free Will" is thus the situation where one's will is free from external pressures or influences. There is an apple and orange in front of me, without any other considerations, I would choose the apple.
Why the apple? Is it because past experience has engendered the belief that the taste of apples will cause you more happiness than the taste of oranges? Is that not an external influence, albeit it an indirect one? If a robot makes choices based on experiences recorded in a database, does the robot have free will? If software on an internet server chooses to route your request one way because that route has in the past had a high success rate, is that free will?

[themuzicman]

This too simplistic to be real. Actually, free will can develop as an evolutionary survival mechanism for life. The greater ability to make decisions under different circumstance is a definite survival mechanism for and intelligent omnivore with a big brain called homo sapiens.

I would love to see a naturalist proof for the existence of free will.

Michael

[The Pixie]

I would love to see any proof of free will.

[Teallaura]

I'd like to see a proof of determinism.



FYI: Machiavelli's The Prince is a cynical combination of realism and utilitarianism. Machiavelli didn't intend it as a guideline to good, or any other kind of, living but as an instruction manual of gaining and keeping power. It's not a philosophy; it's a set of observations put into a form that can be applied.

[Teallaura]

I would love to see any proof of free will.Was wasting your time on the Internet really the most advantageous thing you could do? If not, either your subconscious is on the fritz or maybe there's a problem with the determinist model you're using.

Causality does not negate free will. Nothing in the nature of free will prevents one from making decisions based on available information or to avoid negative consequences. Only if the decision must necessarily arise from a particular circumstance does determinism have any real merit. Was sitting at your computer playing WoW really necessarily what you had to decide to do? If so, determinism; if not, evidence* for free will.









* Not a proof since some combination of the two might still be true. Does refute pure determinism, though.

[themuzicman]

I would love to see any proof of free will.

It would involve the presupposition of the Christian God.

Michael

[Minnesota]

God creates the universe.
That did occur to me, and if he had said , "There is A cause that did not have a cause" I would have let it go assuming he was talking about god, but he said " not all causes . . . " plural,


Why is that bad to you?
I, and I don't think I'm alone here, regard cunning, duplicity, and bad faith as bad. Evidently you see these actions as good. :shrug:

[timspong]

A will cannot be free as it always operates within certain parameters.

e.g. No matter how much you will it you cannot jump 50 ft in the air and you cannot will yourself to be 2 inches tall.

Therefore we are fairly restricted in how we exercise our purported "free" will.

It is the great preconception that people try in vain to adhere to. They will even go as far as to dismiss certain portions of the bible rather than alter their heavy reliance on their concept of free will.

BTW I would also agree with the OP and suggest that the will is just the brains summation of desire and past experiences to produce an action. Something that is easily manipulated by forces of both good and evil.

It is impossible for man to seek God if he is dead in trespasses and sins. God must seek man first and give him that desire via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

[Sheepdog]

it would help to clear up confusion by separating coercive influences and non-coercive influences. I have no problem with the will being influenced in a decision as long as one still truly has the freedom to choose otherwise.

[Minnesota]

This is also true of a crowd or a conversation. Perhaps free will is an emergent property?If it is it still requires explanation, which we are still waiting on, because as it stands free will sprang from the imagination of the human mind and not as a necessary condition of the universe. Free will is not necessary to the operation of the universe, humans included. It is only necessary if one demands objective accountability.



All events above the subatomic level have causes. Reject cause and the only alternative is randomness. Therefore, as I see it, the driving forces for choosing come down to logical coherence and need. Which of them should govern our how we consider the human condition: our needs or logical coherence? I opt of the latter.
Again, I find this unconvincing. A hundred years ago, you would not have qualified hat with "above the subatomic level"; it seemed that all events had causes. Science has since found actually some effects have no cause. Can we really be so sure of our knowledge that we can now claim for certainly that "All events above the subatomic level have causes"?Good observation; however, like everything else in life we have find it best to make our decisions based on current knowledge, not speculation. Give us good reason to suspect free will exists---need is not enough---and I will be happy to qualify my position; however, as it stands no one has done so.

[Minnesota]

it would help to clear up confusion by separating coercive influences and non-coercive influences. I have no problem with the will being influenced in a decision as long as one still truly has the freedom to choose otherwise.But "truly has the freedom" is what this thread is all about. So far no one has been able to explain how a truly free act arises without being a random occurrence.

In the context of the issue, coercive influences are those that arise outside one's self and mitigate an intention. Actually, the "coercive" is redundant, but it serves to reinforce the nature of influence.

[themuzicman]

A will cannot be free as it always operates within certain parameters.

e.g. No matter how much you will it you cannot jump 50 ft in the air and you cannot will yourself to be 2 inches tall.

Therefore we are fairly restricted in how we exercise our purported "free" will.

It is the great preconception that people try in vain to adhere to. They will even go as far as to dismiss certain portions of the bible rather than alter their heavy reliance on their concept of free will.

BTW I would also agree with the OP and suggest that the will is just the brains summation of desire and past experiences to produce an action. Something that is easily manipulated by forces of both good and evil.

It is impossible for man to seek God if he is dead in trespasses and sins. God must seek man first and give him that desire via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

You need to separate will from ability. Free will is only the ability to choose, not the ability to do.

Michael

[Sheepdog]

But "truly has the freedom" is what this thread is all about. So far no one has been able to explain how a truly free act arises without being a random occurrence.

meh. I was responding to a specific thread of conversation that seems to suggest that freewill must be free of any influence. there is no use arguing from that extreme.

now for my part, i may address this thread in full later. i tend not to have the time, so depending on the sincerity to learn vs. arguing for the sake of arguing, i may or may not respond later. that wasn't my intention at this moment.


In the context of the issue, coercive influences are those that arise outside one's self and mitigate an intention. Actually, the "coercive" is redundant, but it serves to reinforce the nature of influence.

i would oppose that strict of a definition. it is clear even in determinism that external factors can affect the will without determining the outcome (e.g., making a decision harder to make, but not changing the actual choice itself)

[Minnesota]

meh. I was responding to a specific thread of conversation that seems to suggest that freewill must be free of any influence. there is no use arguing from that extreme. But that's the essence of the issue. Even if one grants that free will is simply a choice uncoerced by external influences there still remains the problem of true accountability.




it is clear even in determinism that external factors can affect the will without determining the outcome (e.g., making a decision harder to make, but not changing the actual choice itself)Then I am curious as to how that choice arises. If a choice is not caused then it has to be a random occurrence.

[Genesius]

Free Will... choosing to do something that's wrong, when you know it's wrong.

Accountability.. see: Free Will.

[The Pixie]

Teallaura

I'd like to see a proof of determinism.
Me to.

Was wasting your time on the Internet really the most advantageous thing you could do? If not, either your subconscious is on the fritz or maybe there's a problem with the determinist model you're using.
Advantageous? In the sense that it gives me short-term enjoyment, then yes. I do not think the determinist model should claim anything more than that.

Causality does not negate free will. Nothing in the nature of free will prevents one from making decisions based on available information or to avoid negative consequences. Only if the decision must necessarily arise from a particular circumstance does determinism have any real merit. Was sitting at your computer playing WoW really necessarily what you had to decide to do? If so, determinism; if not, evidence* for free will.
Well we have to be careful here. Given the particular set of circumstances, was it inevitable that I would playWoW? In the deterministic model (I assume) I have several options, but because of my situation at that moment, the WoW option is the prefered one, so is what I do. Does that then precude free will?

Minnesota

If it is it still requires explanation, which we are still waiting on, because as it stands free will sprang from the imagination of the human mind and not as a necessary condition of the universe. Free will is not necessary to the operation of the universe, humans included. It is only necessary if one demands objective accountability.
I do tend towards your point of view, I just found your argument unconvincing.

Good observation; however, like everything else in life we have find it best to make our decisions based on current knowledge, not speculation. Give us good reason to suspect free will exists---need is not enough---and I will be happy to qualify my position; however, as it stands no one has done so.
I agree, and I think this is a good supporting evidence, but not proof.

[themuzicman]

Then I am curious as to how that choice arises. If a choice is not caused then it has to be a random occurrence.

I think there's a bit of equivocation going on here.

If you mean random in that it cannot be predicted with certainty, that would be true.

If you mean that it cannot be explained after the fact, then that would probably not be true.

Depends on which you mean.

Michael

[The Pixie]

Genesius

Free Will... choosing to do something that's wrong, when you know it's wrong.
I hesitate to respond to someone who choses to display his anti-atheist prejudices so proudly in his signature, however...

So you deny free will in the robot as it is (presumably) unable to tell right from wrong. Indeed, I suppose choosing betwen an apple and an orange is not free will, but choosing between a cream cake and an apple is free will if you choose the cream cake.

[Genesius]

Teallaura


In the deterministic model (I assume) I have several options, but because of my situation at that moment, the WoW option is the prefered one, so is what I do. Does that then precude free will?


This is the major philosophical question for me. The situation you are in at that moment when you weigh your preferences has come about from many other "choices". Even what you base your preferences on has been determined in some way by the priorities you "choose" to adopt. The question is, if we can weigh our preferences, change our preferences, change priorities, then do exactly the opposite of what the "logical" determined action would be, how is that not a good example of exercising free will?

[Teallaura]

Teallaura

Advantageous? In the sense that it gives me short-term enjoyment, then yes. I do not think the determinist model should claim anything more than that.But is it would seem counter to the model you laid out - and contrary to the idea of determinism.


[Well we have to be careful here. Given the particular set of circumstances, was it inevitable that I would playWoW? In the deterministic model (I assume) I have several options, but because of my situation at that moment, the WoW option is the prefered one, so is what I do. Does that then precude free will?
Actually, it would preclude determinism, not free will. The limitation of options is not a problem for free will - it's the ability to choose independently from those options that characterizes free will. Determinism would require a particular outcome from a particular set of circumstances. The options would be illusionary - the ultimate choice is a necessary one.

In this example your preference for WoW means that under those circumstances you will always chose WoW over any other available option. The availability of options is somewhat misleading since in a deterministic model you must necessarily make that particular choice in those particular circumstances. For free will the availability of options is genuine - there is no necessary choice. The free will actor can choose any of the available options and is not 'obligated' to choose any particular option necessarily

The inability to flap one's arms and fly is no issue for free will but the ability to chose to flap one's arms in the attempt to fly anyway, despite its defiance of all reason (absent insanity), is a major issue for determinism.

Frankly, I've never found the arguments for determinism compelling at all - all the evidence for it requires a rather Skinneresque view of the world. The case for free will is the much stronger in my opinion and fits the evidence found in human behavior much better.

[Minnesota]

Minnesota

I do tend towards your point of view, I just found your argument unconvincing.

I agree, and I think this is a good supporting evidence, but not proof.
Well, proof is one of those things that really only exists in mathematics and logic, else wise we have to rely on a preponderance evidence to establish "proof," but I know what you're driving at. As it stands the preponderance of evidence points directly at determinism. It best explains why events---all events other than the subatomic---occur. Free will does not, and suffers from a dearth of evidence. Essentially, free will is a solution concocted to establish accountability, and most importantly, to give credence to the notion of sin, repentance, and forgiveness. This is why theologians often find themselves addressing it.

[Teallaura]

Genesius

I hesitate to respond to someone who choses to display his anti-atheist prejudices so proudly in his signature, however...

So you deny free will in the robot as it is (presumably) unable to tell right from wrong. Indeed, I suppose choosing betwen an apple and an orange is not free will, but choosing between a cream cake and an apple is free will if you choose the cream cake.

Pixie, sorry to butt in but are you sure you mean free will? You're describing determinism, not free will. That or I'm really not getting you. I'd noticed something similar in your reply to me but thought then it was just a misstatement.

[Vigilante]

Here is a syllogism to chew on.

1) If determinism is true, teleology can't exist.
2) Teleology exists
3) Therefore determinism is false (that is, a 100% deterministic world)


-1 Mindless forces do not think about the future, plan for the future, progress toward future goals, they work only on natural principles of the moment, nothing beyond. Therefore in a 100% deterministic world, there is no purpose or design, there is simply matter in motion and we dance to its music, to borrow Dawkins' phrase. This is seen in nature, but not in human action. A rock lives in a deterministic world. It does not choose to roll one way or the other, gravity makes it go, or some other efficient cause. A rock does not choose to decompose, or heat up, or cool off, to break, to roll, to bury itself under sand. It is 100% deterministic with no free will of its own. There is no teleology in a rock's world. And so it would be for ANY natural entity, in a deterministic world. A rock rolls and cannot think about the fact that it is rolling into a grinder or off a cliff, it doesn't care. There can be no purpose or design to a rock's movement, it is determined.

-2 Contrast a rock to a human, who DOES control its comings and goings. It does not act on 100% deterministic efficient causes, but also on final causes. Teleology exists for a person, not for a rock. Teleology is the study of purpose and design in natural phenomenon, but there is no such thing in a 100% deterministic world. If you are reading this thread, it is for a reason and purpose, not because natural forces made you do it right in this moment. It is your choice. If you go to college it is because you have a future goal of being smarter about something and getting a good job. If you read a book, it's because you want to know what's inside. If you start a 401(k) it is because you want money in retirement, etc.. ad infinitum. Not only does teleology exist, but we also have the will to DENY natural forces. We have self-sacrifice, altruism, etc... If we get pushed down, someone else can choose to break our fall by their own choice. There is no law of nature stating one object has to prevent the destruction of another object. One rock does not roll in the path of another rock to keep it from going off a cliff. It should be plainly obvious that teleology exists for people.

-3 According to 1 and 2, this is not a 100% deterministic world. It contains BOTH determinism AND teleology. Teleology implies will to DISobey the natural order, we don't HAVE to dance to its music. Name ANY natural entity that can think about the future. Even animals have very very limited, if at all, ability to plan for the future or work for future goals. It would seem humans and ONLY humans, have this vast complicated thing called final causes. WE plan for a future goal, and WE make the choices to reach that goal, irregardless of external stimuli, if we are so dedicated.


Implication - If we do not live in a 100% deterministic world, then some form of free will must exist. And also I would appeal to the way we live. We can argue till the cows come home that free will doesn't exist or whatever, but humans have ALWAYS lived as though it does. We ARE responsible for our actions, we hold each other accountable. You can't blame clouds for washing out your garden, clouds just do what they do, they have no choice, nobody tries to sue clouds or put them in prison for destroying property. Same with EVERY other entity on earth. To a small degree we hold animals accountable, we punish them in the short term to curve behavior, but animals do not care about the death sentence or a life term in prison, we don't "punish" them like that. We certainly don't punish them like that as a way to curb OTHER animals from doing the same actions.

Lastly I'd comment that free will is not made any less because you base your decisions on various natural factors. To use a rock, again, a rock does not roll down a hill only after it contemplates the factors. It just DOES. Our ability to think about all the various things that curb our actions is a very sign OF free will. You might not have a choice about rolling down a hill either, but at least you can roll side to side and catch a branch or stop against something. A rock just rolls uncontrolled. A rock falls through the air going only where the wind takes it. If you fall in the air, you can at least direct yourself ever so much and plan for impact. And even when in a situation that is 100% out of your control, you at least have the will that you would rather be somewhere else, just not the power to make it so. A rock does not care if it is falling or rolling or being smashed to bits.

In conclusion, determinism cannot be 100% true, neither is libertarianism 100% true for all of nature. At least for humans, both occur. For a rock, it is 100% determinism. For God, 100% libertarianism. For humans, a bit of both while here on this earth I think.


Peace

[Minnesota]

Here is a syllogism to chew on.

1) If determinism is true, teleology can't exist.
2) Teleology exists
3) Therefore determinism is false (that is, a 100% deterministic world)
But first you have to show why, "If determinism is true, teleology can't exist." False premises don't make sound arguments.





-3 According to 1 and 2, this is not a 100% deterministic world. It contains BOTH determinism AND teleology. Teleology implies will to DISobey the natural order, we don't HAVE to dance to its music. Name ANY natural entity that can think about the future. Even animals have very very limited, if at all, ability to plan for the future or work for future goals. It would seem humans and ONLY humans, have this vast complicated thing called final causes. WE plan for a future goal, and WE make the choices to reach that goal, irregardless of external stimuli, if we are so dedicated.


Implication - If we do not live in a 100% deterministic world, then some form of free will must exist. And also I would appeal to the way we live. We can argue till the cows come home that free will doesn't exist or whatever, but humans have ALWAYS lived as though it does. We ARE responsible for our actions, we hold each other accountable. You can't blame clouds for washing out your garden, clouds just do what they do, they have no choice, nobody tries to sue clouds or put them in prison for destroying property. Same with EVERY other entity on earth. To a small degree we hold animals accountable, we punish them in the short term to curve behavior, but animals do not care about the death sentence or a life term in prison, we don't "punish" them like that. We certainly don't punish them like that as a way to curb OTHER animals from doing the same actions.

Wikipedia has a nice definition of "teleology":
Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations. Your obligation, because it's your assertion, is to show why a study, any study for that matter, cannot exist in a deterministic world. That I may be a cryptozoologist doesn't mean the objects of my study necessarily exist. Moreover, design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations are irrelevant to the issue.


Lastly I'd comment that free will is not made any less because you base your decisions on various natural factors. To use a rock, again, a rock does not roll down a hill only after it contemplates the factors. It just DOES. Our ability to think about all the various things that curb our actions is a very sign OF free will.This is begging the question, so you've disqualified it from consideration before the starting gun goes off.

[Vigilante]

But first you have to show why, "If determinism is true, teleology can't exist." False premises don't make sound arguments.
I explained it in the "1-" section.
This is my premise, if you like, you can tell me how predetermined events like the forces of nature are able to plan for the future. How a stub of bone "knows" to become a wing in 45 million years and works to that end intelligently. Does it know? Does it care? Does it plan?
I actually see no reason to reject the premise, it makes plain and simple sense to me. If everything is determined, trying to make future plans is futile and useless cause you have no choice about the future, your actions are determined.


Your obligation, because it's your assertion, is to show why a study, any study for that matter, cannot exist in a deterministic world.
We would have no knowledge of what it means to plan for the future. We just hope the forces that be will push us the way we want. It would be futile to make our own plans, as if we could achieve our OWN desires DESPITE what nature might have for us.


Moreover, design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations are irrelevant to the issue.
Um, they are the very issue I'm talking about. Are humans deterministic or libertarian? Or both? I've shown they cannot be 100% deterministic.


This is begging the question, so you've disqualified it from consideration before the starting gun goes off.
It is not begging the question, it is speaking from the outcome of my logic. You don't read conclusions and complain it's begging the question. It is true if my conclusion is true. It would be begging the question if I did not say the rest of my post FIRST.


Peace

[shunyadragon]

I would love to see a naturalist proof for the existence of free will.

Michael

There is neither a proof for free will nor determinism from either the naturalist nor theistic perspective. Proof is a rather bad concept for a very subjective concept as this.

There is a good argument for a degree of both free will and determinism in human decisions as well as a lesser degree in the decision making process of some other higher animals.

[Tladatsi]

Tladatsi

Yes, I think this is part of my confusion. So would you say we could build a robot with the ability to choose, but lacking in free will? Or just consider the software that chose to retrieve this web page from the server to your PC by a certain route rather than any other. That would seem to have the ability to choose, but not free will.

I would suggest that we could build a robot / computer that could both choose and have free will. We would program in certain desires. It would say "want" to serve human beings and would only satisfied when human beings are satisfied (I am thinking of Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" books). The robots "will" is free so long as no one tries to influence the robot to obey some other will than it's own.


Why the apple? Is it because past experience has engendered the belief that the taste of apples will cause you more happiness than the taste of oranges? Is that not an external influence, albeit it an indirect one? If a robot makes choices based on experiences recorded in a database, does the robot have free will? If software on an internet server chooses to route your request one way because that route has in the past had a high success rate, is that free will?

I would suggest that our will is the result of a complex interaction between genetics and past experience, nature and nurture. I do not believe that we can "choose our will" or "will our will". One cannot just one day wake and say "I will like oranges" (cigarette smokers and alcoholics can tell you all about it). "Why I will to eat apples and do not will to eat oranges" is very different question from "Is my will is constrained or free".

There is a somewhat different question that the above question gets confused with. The question is "Are we slaves to our will?" or "Are we slaves to the factors that created our will?". I believe we, in fact, are slaves these factors until we learn how to change them. This requires us to change our minds and the world. For example, no human being wills to eat acorns. Although highly nutritious, they taste really bad (they are full of tannins and lignins which are very bitter). As a result, although much of Europe has been covered in extensive oak woodlands, many people there starved to death there because they could and would not eat acorns.

However, the Chumash people of California figured out how to grind and wash the tannins out of acorns. They thrived in a land covered in oak trees and needed no farming because they had figured out how to eat acorns. In fact, on Santa Cruz Island, there are more species of oak tree than anywhere else, including a few species that are extinct everywhere else. The theory is that they intentionally collected different species and brought them to the island so that there would be at least some trees fruiting all year round.

Since acorn farming is unknown anywhere else, when the Chumash people arrived in central California, they did not know this technique. They were not slaves to their environment or to their upbringing or their natural revulsion to tannins. They figured out how to change their world and themselves to conform to their will, their will to eat food but not tannins.

What they did not do was just "will" themselves to eat acorns, or more specifically tannins. They did not force themselves to eat acorns. The could not change their "will" but they could change the world and themselves.

[shunyadragon]

I explained it in the "1-" section.
This is my premise, if you like, you can tell me how predetermined events like the forces of nature are able to plan for the future. How a stub of bone "knows" to become a wing in 45 million years and works to that end intelligently. Does it know? Does it care? Does it plan?
I actually see no reason to reject the premise, it makes plain and simple sense to me. If everything is determined, trying to make future plans is futile and useless cause you have no choice about the future, your actions are determined.

The problem is the forces of nature do not represent predetermined events, and they do not plan for the future. There is no evidence that anything in nature 'knows' how to become anything. All events in the cource of time occur within the scope of natural law in a given natural evnvironment, but the fractal 'chaos' model for the natural course of events over time prevents anything from being predetermined, or occuring randomly or by chance. This is best exsmplified by the weather. The range of weather is determined by the laws of nature and the environment, but the weather is not predetermined. Our abilit to predict the weather is good on the short term, like a few days, but breaks down as we try to predict the weather for longer periods of time because the large number of variables that creastes a fractal non-linear relationship.

The evolution of the life, and the wing, occurs within the range of natural law in a given environment responding to the addaptation to changing environments over time, and is neither predetermined nor by chance.


We would have no knowledge of what it means to plan for the future. We just hope the forces that be will push us the way we want. It would be futile to make our own plans, as if we could achieve our OWN desires DESPITE what nature might have for us.

The future is indeed perdictable to a limited degree naturally, but not predetermined. Regardless of whether there is free will or not, fractal chaos will always keep things interesting and not perdetermined.



Um, they are the very issue I'm talking about. Are humans deterministic or libertarian? Or both? I've shown they cannot be 100% deterministic.

True, so what? The nature of existence is neither deterministic nor totally libertarian according to any naturalist model.

[Philosophickle]

Care to name a few? If they are not caused then from whence do they spring?

That is a good question, and one that science has yet to plunder. However, a question is not substitute for an argument, which is yet another reason to reject the contradictions inherent in deterministic systems and (perhaps tenuously) throw our lot in with the libertarians.


And neither does it do away with the difficulty inherent in free will. The compatibilist wants it both ways, but this can only be accomplished by using "free" in two different senses. A no-no. And recall, the only "difficulty" determinism presents is that it does away with moral culpability, the bane of the compatibilist and why he takes the position he does. He close one eye when looking at determinism and closes the other when looking at free will. In essence he is playing a word game in order to sleep at night.

It appears that we are in full agreement here. The compatibilist position is silly.


As has been mentioned, there is some disagreement about the connection between free will and choice.

If we suppose for the moment that you can have choice, but not free will, does that allow moral responsibility? I think so, but must admit, I would find it hard to say why (so unless you disagree, I will not even try).

What is a choice without free will? I think you are getting close to compatibilism here, so we can talk about that if you want.

[Philosophickle]

Then I am curious as to how that choice arises. If a choice is not caused then it has to be a random occurrence.

That's the assumption Minn. The question is, is accepting a mystery better than accepting a direct contradiction? I believe so.

[The Pixie]

Genesius

This is the major philosophical question for me. The situation you are in at that moment when you weigh your preferences has come about from many other "choices". Even what you base your preferences on has been determined in some way by the priorities you "choose" to adopt. The question is, if we can weigh our preferences, change our preferences, change priorities, then do exactly the opposite of what the "logical" determined action would be, how is that not a good example of exercising free will?
Do we choose how to weight decisions? And if we do, are those choices dictated by external factors (including past experiences and genetics), or merely influences by them? Sure, we can change our priorities. But do we change them for no reason at all? Can you think of any occasion in your life when your priorities changed for no reason?

What do you mean by the ' "logical" determined action'? People do stupid things all the time, but they (I suggest) always have some reason for it, whether that reason is to get somewhere faster, to make life easier, to look cool in front of their friends, etc.

Teallaura

Pix: Advantageous? In the sense that it gives me short-term enjoyment, then yes. I do not think the determinist model should claim anything more than that.

Teallaura: But is it would seem counter to the model you laid out - and contrary to the idea of determinism.
Then I did not explain my model to well! What I am suggesting is that people do things for a reason. That reason may be to give a short term increase in their well-being, or to safeguard their future. It might even give a short term increase in their well-being at the same time as endangering their future. Whatever the case, people do things because they perceive a benefit to themselves and/or those people important to them.

Actually, it would preclude determinism, not free will. The limitation of options is not a problem for free will - it's the ability to choose independently from those options that characterizes free will. Determinism would require a particular outcome from a particular set of circumstances. The options would be illusionary - the ultimate choice is a necessary one.
Thinking back to the robot in the OP, the robot determines it has three ways to get to its destination; bus, car or walk. It evaluates each option against a set of criteria, including the time involved, the hassle involved and the environmental impact. Each criterium has an importance, and that weights how much the criterium affects the outcome. Walking involves a lot of time and hassle, but zero environment impact. However, environment impact is of low importance to the robot. Getting the bus is much faster than walking, but has the hassle of waiting for the bus. Going by car is faster, but more hassle. So the bus option wins. The robot had three choices, but, given its priorities and the set of conditions at the time, it was inevitable that the robot would get the bus. As you say, "a particular outcome from a particular set of circumstances". Does that mean that the car and foot options were therefore illusionary? I do not think so (but perhaps they are from a certain perspective).

The availability of options is somewhat misleading since in a deterministic model you must necessarily make that particular choice in those particular circumstances. For free will the availability of options is genuine - there is no necessary choice. The free will actor can choose any of the available options and is not 'obligated' to choose any particular option necessarily
The robot was not 'obligated' to choose the bus, and I believe that the options were genuinely available. It was just inevitable it would select the bus, given the conditions.

Pixie, sorry to butt in but are you sure you mean free will? You're describing determinism, not free will. That or I'm really not getting you. I'd noticed something similar in your reply to me but thought then it was just a misstatement.
Not sure at all. When I tried to decide if we have free will, I found that I did not really understand what free will is, and hence this thread. I tend towards determinism, but I am not convinced that would exclude free will, because I realised I did not understand what it is.

Vigilante


Mindless forces do not think about the future, plan for the future, progress toward future goals, they work only on natural principles of the moment, nothing beyond. Therefore in a 100% deterministic world, there is no purpose or design, there is simply matter in motion and we dance to its music, to borrow Dawkins' phrase.
Your logic is dubious here. There is more to the universe - even in the determinist's universe - than just "mindless forces". There are minds, for example. They do indeed think about the future.

There is no teleology in a rock's world. And so it would be for ANY natural entity, in a deterministic world. A rock rolls and cannot think about the fact that it is rolling into a grinder or off a cliff, it doesn't care. There can be no purpose or design to a rock's movement, it is determined.
A river has the "purpose" of getting to the sea, and must often go very long distances to achieve its "goal". Is the river telic? I think the answer depends on how you define telic; sounds like you would define it as having some goal in mind, and so teleology is necessarily connected to the mind. That is fine, but let's remember that.

... It should be plainly obvious that teleology exists for people.
Sure. We all know from personal experience that we can plan for the future, and no one is claiming a river or a rock has a mind, so even when a river has the goal of reaching the sea, it is not telic.

But does that preclude determinism? I do not see why. All the things you describe, they all involve people doing something for a reason. Even self-sacrifice is for a reason. People give up their own lives because they believe that in that situation it is the best thing to do. That sounds potentially deterministic to me.

According to 1 and 2, this is not a 100% deterministic world. It contains BOTH determinism AND teleology.
Well actually it includes randomness too.

Teleology implies will to DISobey the natural order, we don't HAVE to dance to its music.
Are you sure? Maybe you do not know what the natural order really is, and you have unwittingly been dancing to its music all your life. I am quite sure you have never broken the laws of nature.

Name ANY natural entity that can think about the future. Even animals have very very limited, if at all, ability to plan for the future or work for future goals. It would seem humans and ONLY humans, have this vast complicated thing called final causes. WE plan for a future goal, and WE make the choices to reach that goal, irregardless of external stimuli, if we are so dedicated.
Sorry, I do not understand why this is relevant. Sure, human's are the only really intelligent entities we know about (though who can say what else is out there across the universe). Why should that lead us to reject determinism, or accept free will?


Tladatsi

I would suggest that we could build a robot / computer that could both choose and have free will. We would program in certain desires. It would say "want" to serve human beings and would only satisfied when human beings are satisfied (I am thinking of Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" books). The robots "will" is free so long as no one tries to influence the robot to obey some other will than it's own.
I agree.

Since acorn farming is unknown anywhere else, when the Chumash people arrived in central California, they did not know this technique. They were not slaves to their environment or to their upbringing or their natural revulsion to tannins. They figured out how to change their world and themselves to conform to their will, their will to eat food but not tannins.

What they did not do was just "will" themselves to eat acorns, or more specifically tannins. They did not force themselves to eat acorns. The could not change their "will" but they could change the world and themselves.
I woulsd guess there is a cultural factor here. Europeans do not eat acorns because no one does that, so even if they are starving to death, it just does not occur to them to go for the acorn option. The Chumash people presumably were descended from people who had crossed into America via the Bering Straits, and for many generations had never seen an oak tree, so the cultural "do not eat acorns" rule was lost. When they encountered oak trees, suddenly they had a new food option. They were not "slaves" to their upbringing in this particular regard simply because that rule had been lost generations earlier. Perhaps they ate bitter-tasting acorns because the other option was starving. They experimented with how to prepare the acorns because the other option was eating bitter tasting acorns. So I would suggest that may they were indeed slaves to their environment and upbringing, just as much (or as little) as the rest of us.

[Vigilante]

True, so what? The nature of existence is neither deterministic nor totally libertarian according to any naturalist model.
Ya, that's kinda the point of everything I've said. Determinism is not true. And somebody asked for proof that it was or was not. Seems to be obvious that it is not true, for humans at least. Not for all of nature.


The future is indeed perdictable to a limited degree naturally, but not predetermined. Regardless of whether there is free will or not, fractal chaos will always keep things interesting and not perdetermined.
To the degree in which human and possibly animal free choice is involved, nature is not 100% determined. But without us, where every molecule follows natural law and nothing can make choices for itself, it WOULD BE predetermined.
Your argument seems to stem out of, "well humans aren't smart enough to predict natural events, therefore natural events are not predictable or predetermined." But that fails. Of course we COULD predict the weather 6 months in advance, if all we had was the natural order, and a pretty darn exhaustive database of the activity of every molecule and atom on the planet, with exhaustive knowledge about every aspect of natural law and order. But since humans aren't that smart, we don't have the knowledge nor the computing power to figure it out, and given that the natural order can be muddled via the free choices of living things, it is not all determinable.
The fractal chaos you talk about may be all well and true, but it doesn't matter. Every minuscule event has a cause, and if natural law and physics is ALL that is happening, then every event is in a predictable cascade. It is sort of like predicting where the balls will go when you shoot pool. It is entirely possible to know where every ball will go when you break, because you have a deep understanding of the physics involved. And indeed I saw a video of somebody break in such a way as to put so many balls in a pocket, with each consecutive ball easy to sink afterwards. Is the break fractal chaos? Just something hitting something hitting something in an endless tirade that is unpredictable? Or is it still just a physical cause and effect cascade that is predictable so long as we have all the variables?
So to conclude the example of playing pool, the only way it becomes unpredictable is by the free will choice of a being. Suppose you put a cat on the table. Or a 5 year old. You cannot predict if the cat will swat a ball or if a ball with happen to hit it or where the cat might walk. You don't know if the 5 year old will keep his hands off the table. Only by entering in the variable of a free being does your game become unpredictable.


Peace

[themuzicman]

Naturalist proof of determinism:

1) All things that happen conform to natural law
2) Natural law, then defines all causes and effects
3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause
4) Additionally, that choice must conform to natural law.
5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and the natural law that defines my choice.
6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined
7) Therefore, determinism is true.

[Minnesota]

That is a good question, and one that science has yet to plunder. However, a question is not substitute for an argument, which is yet another reason to reject the contradictions inherent in deterministic systems and (perhaps tenuously) throw our lot in with the libertarians.I don't think science is going to be the venue in which you will find your answer. The issue, although grounded in physical reality, is more philosophical than anything. But I do agree that a question is not necessarily an argument; however, it does stand as a challenge to explain your position; in effect arguing that a failure to back up your position automatically defaults to the alternative. Given that there are only two existing options that account for an event, to discard both because they don't satisfy one's belief and simply opt to say "there MUST be a third option, although I have absolutely no idea of what it could be," doesn't strike me as at all reasonable. :shrug: It's like saying, "I know these are the only two roads known to lead to Rome, but I need one paved with gold, and because neither of these are paved with gold, AND there must be one that is, and I'm going to sit here until that third road makes itself known. Not a perfect analogy, but . . . . . . .I'm not perfect. :teeth:



That's the assumption Minn. The question is, is accepting a mystery better than accepting a direct contradiction? I believe so.Not a contradiction at all. Simply two alternatives, neither of which happens to satisfy a contrived criterion. It's a mystery only because you need to make it one. So far absolutely everything we know about the existence of events points to one of two reasons, but you contend there is a third reason, not because the other two fail in their explanation---the world can be explained quite well with just the two---but because they fail to meet your additional criterion. In any case you contend there are three reasons for the existence of events.

1. Cause/effect

2. Randomness

3. ????????????


So be it.

[wolper]

Here is a syllogism to chew on.

1) If determinism is true, teleology can't exist.
2) Teleology exists
3) Therefore determinism is false (that is, a 100% deterministic world)


-1 Mindless forces do not think about the future, plan for the future, progress toward future goals, they work only on natural principles of the moment, nothing beyond. Therefore in a 100% deterministic world, there is no purpose or design, there is simply matter in motion and we dance to its music, to borrow Dawkins' phrase. This is seen in nature, but not in human action. A rock lives in a deterministic world. It does not choose to roll one way or the other, gravity makes it go, or some other efficient cause. A rock does not choose to decompose, or heat up, or cool off, to break, to roll, to bury itself under sand. It is 100% deterministic with no free will of its own. There is no teleology in a rock's world. And so it would be for ANY natural entity, in a deterministic world. A rock rolls and cannot think about the fact that it is rolling into a grinder or off a cliff, it doesn't care. There can be no purpose or design to a rock's movement, it is determined.

-2 Contrast a rock to a human, who DOES control its comings and goings. It does not act on 100% deterministic efficient causes, but also on final causes. Teleology exists for a person, not for a rock. Teleology is the study of purpose and design in natural phenomenon, but there is no such thing in a 100% deterministic world. If you are reading this thread, it is for a reason and purpose, not because natural forces made you do it right in this moment. It is your choice. If you go to college it is because you have a future goal of being smarter about something and getting a good job. If you read a book, it's because you want to know what's inside. If you start a 401(k) it is because you want money in retirement, etc.. ad infinitum. Not only does teleology exist, but we also have the will to DENY natural forces. We have self-sacrifice, altruism, etc... If we get pushed down, someone else can choose to break our fall by their own choice. There is no law of nature stating one object has to prevent the destruction of another object. One rock does not roll in the path of another rock to keep it from going off a cliff. It should be plainly obvious that teleology exists for people.

-3 According to 1 and 2, this is not a 100% deterministic world. It contains BOTH determinism AND teleology. Teleology implies will to DISobey the natural order, we don't HAVE to dance to its music. Name ANY natural entity that can think about the future. Even animals have very very limited, if at all, ability to plan for the future or work for future goals. It would seem humans and ONLY humans, have this vast complicated thing called final causes. WE plan for a future goal, and WE make the choices to reach that goal, irregardless of external stimuli, if we are so dedicated.


Implication - If we do not live in a 100% deterministic world, then some form of free will must exist. And also I would appeal to the way we live. We can argue till the cows come home that free will doesn't exist or whatever, but humans have ALWAYS lived as though it does. We ARE responsible for our actions, we hold each other accountable. You can't blame clouds for washing out your garden, clouds just do what they do, they have no choice, nobody tries to sue clouds or put them in prison for destroying property. Same with EVERY other entity on earth. To a small degree we hold animals accountable, we punish them in the short term to curve behavior, but animals do not care about the death sentence or a life term in prison, we don't "punish" them like that. We certainly don't punish them like that as a way to curb OTHER animals from doing the same actions.

Lastly I'd comment that free will is not made any less because you base your decisions on various natural factors. To use a rock, again, a rock does not roll down a hill only after it contemplates the factors. It just DOES. Our ability to think about all the various things that curb our actions is a very sign OF free will. You might not have a choice about rolling down a hill either, but at least you can roll side to side and catch a branch or stop against something. A rock just rolls uncontrolled. A rock falls through the air going only where the wind takes it. If you fall in the air, you can at least direct yourself ever so much and plan for impact. And even when in a situation that is 100% out of your control, you at least have the will that you would rather be somewhere else, just not the power to make it so. A rock does not care if it is falling or rolling or being smashed to bits.

In conclusion, determinism cannot be 100% true, neither is libertarianism 100% true for all of nature. At least for humans, both occur. For a rock, it is 100% determinism. For God, 100% libertarianism. For humans, a bit of both while here on this earth I think.


Peace

Hello,

I think you got the wrong idea about what determinism is. Determinism does not mean we do not have an (apparent) choice or that we can not think about the future; it does not mean we are a mindless force that can do nothing if we're rolling down a hill like a rock. In a deterministic universe we can alter the present inadvertently or for our purposes.

But what determinism does say is that from every state of the universe there automatically follows the next state, implying that if we (purposefully or not) make adjustments to the present state, we could not have done otherwise. That is, every "choice" we make could not have turned out differently. If we do roll down a hill and decide to break the fall, which as you rightfully say a rock can't do, we will do so again and again - given the exact same state of the universe - but that last bit is unlikely to happen again.

So imo determinism does not contradict teleology. It does however contradict free will (as I understand it).

[Vigilante]

I'll respond to the part directed at me.



Your logic is dubious here. There is more to the universe - even in the determinist's universe - than just "mindless forces". There are minds, for example. They do indeed think about the future.
Notice I said in a "mindless" world, all there is is nature and its laws. In a "100% deterministic" world, we cannot expect to find ANY entity which can plan for a future different than what the natural order leads. If ALL there is is physical law which does with us as it intends, planning for the future is fruitless and meaningless, cause you will end up where mother nature wants you.
Therefore, since this is NOT what we see in nature, it is NOT mindless, and people DO plan for the future, determinism is false.


A river has the "purpose" of getting to the sea, and must often go very long distances to achieve its "goal". Is the river telic? I think the answer depends on how you define telic; sounds like you would define it as having some goal in mind, and so teleology is necessarily connected to the mind. That is fine, but let's remember that.
No a river has no purpose, it is flowing from underground pressures and gravity within the confines of a channel of land. It cannot, does not, plan for any future goal other then pouring into the sea. Even if a river HAD a mind, it is still not able to change what nature has for us. What if it wanted to go UP hill instead of down?
The purpose you see in a river is illusory. However, stick 5 humans at the mouth of the river, and you will have a completely unpredictable outcome. Maybe some will wade down stream. Some might take off sideways or climb up, maybe one will sit and have a bite to eat. Hardly as predictable as the river.


Sure. We all know from personal experience that we can plan for the future, and no one is claiming a river or a rock has a mind, so even when a river has the goal of reaching the sea, it is not telic.
It does not have a goal, you are projecting that on to it.


But does that preclude determinism? I do not see why. All the things you describe, they all involve people doing something for a reason. Even self-sacrifice is for a reason. People give up their own lives because they believe that in that situation it is the best thing to do. That sounds potentially deterministic to me.
It is not deterministic, it is rationality. Don't assume just because a robot who is programmed with absolute rules and chooses a bus, means every human would choose the bus as well. Not all humans have the same rules, ascribe the same value to any particular variable. Not everybody is as rational as a robot. And I think it is precisely because we DON'T have some absolute rules within us, we are free. For example, a human may not take the bus if she sees some pretty shady characters getting on. A robot would probably care less about it's own "feelings" regarding the character of other passengers. Therefore the bus may in fact be the quickest and most efficient choice, but she chooses to take the car based only on some feelings about the character of other people. All this takes place in her mind. It is not gravity or the speed of light or any mathematical formula that is making her choose it. It is just her feelings, which may not be shared by any other human. So basically, if ONLY predeterministic natural laws were working, ALL humans would end up feeling uncomfortable with the shady characters and would choose the car. But it is not so. Why should nature allow every human to think differently? It doesn't let every water molecule act differently than other water molecules. Experience doesn't matter either. You can take some experienced Lake Erie water and put it in a river in the Amazon and it will act just like the other Amazon water.


Well actually it includes randomness too.
I don't subscribe to randomness. Just because a human can't find a cause, doesn't make it random. Our ignorance of events is what we call "random".


Are you sure? Maybe you do not know what the natural order really is, and you have unwittingly been dancing to its music all your life. I am quite sure you have never broken the laws of nature.
Laws of nature don't tell me when precisely to get out of bed, or exactly how hot to make my shower water, or any number of things that I first THINK about before ACTING on them. Nature is its own force, if you will, nature doesn't first make us think to follow gravity and then have us act on it. Nature forces gravity upon us whether we like it or not. So the very fact that I can think of something I want, and then act in order to reach that goal, means that nature is not forcing this upon me.
You might argue that biological nature may in fact force me to choose an apple or an orange, but this makes nature an extremely intelligent fellow, cause he deals with every mind differently. Seems to me if deaf dumb blind ignorant nature were forcing things on people, then ALL people would be forced the same way. But instead it seems nature is dealing with everybody differently. Which I think it cannot do. And so some other force is at work.


Sorry, I do not understand why this is relevant. Sure, human's are the only really intelligent entities we know about (though who can say what else is out there across the universe). Why should that lead us to reject determinism, or accept free will?
I reject determinism because I am able to THINK about a goal and then ACT to get there, despite what natural law might have for me. I can act AGAINST the natural idea of self-preservation. I can choose to be selfish or selfless, to give or to take, to sacrifice for somebody or ignore them. These are opposing views and it wouldn't seem right for nature to allow contradictory flows of action. I mean, nature doesn't let water flow down one day and up the next, if you follow. So it seems to me if self-preservation was nature's way, there simply would not BE self-sacrifice and altruism. So either we are acting against nature by doing contradictory actions, or nature can't make up its mind.



Peace

[Philosophickle]

I don't think science is going to be the venue in which you will find your answer. The issue, although grounded in physical reality, is more philosophical than anything. But I do agree that a question is not necessarily an argument; however, it does stand as a challenge to explain your position; in effect arguing that a failure to back up your position automatically defaults to the alternative.

But this suggests that there are no good reasons for rejecting the alternative. I understand your point- it certainly is the weakest point for the libertarian. However, failing to explain some facet of this particular system does not necessarily drive one into another explanation. For example, when confronting an Idealist and asks me what matter is, I must confess to him that I do not know. I know what properties it owns (extended in space, mass, etc.), but I do not know what owns those things. But our direct experience with it, along with the inferences drawn from that sort of realism, overrides any difficulties I have. Does an answer exist? I think so. Do we have it yet? I don't think so.


Not a contradiction at all. Simply two alternatives, neither of which happens to satisfy a contrived criterion. It's a mystery only because you need to make it one. So far absolutely everything we know about the existence of events points to one of two reasons, but you contend there is a third reason, not because the other two fail in their explanation---the world can be explained quite well with just the two---but because they fail to meet your additional criterion. In any case you contend there are three reasons for the existence of events.

1. Cause/effect

2. Randomness

3. ????????????


So be it.

Determinism does contradict some things about human experience- one of them must go. But as far as this triad of options, many, if not most, libertarians would accept your first reason of the existence of events (cause/effect).

If you are up to just a tiny bit of reading, here is a good synopsis of various brands of libertarianism. (http://graphe.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/libertarianism-compatibilism-and-moral-responsiblity-a-philosophical-introduction-to-available-models-part-2/)

[Vigilante]

Hello,

I think you got the wrong idea about what determinism is. Determinism does not mean we do not have an (apparent) choice or that we can not think about the future; it does not mean we are a mindless force that can do nothing if we're rolling down a hill like a rock. In a deterministic universe we can alter the present inadvertently or for our purposes.

But what determinism does say is that from every state of the universe there automatically follows the next state, implying that if we (purposefully or not) make adjustments to the present state, we could not have done otherwise. That is, every "choice" we make could not have turned out differently. If we do roll down a hill and decide to break the fall, which as you rightfully say a rock can't do, we will do so again and again - given the exact same state of the universe - but that last bit is unlikely to happen again.

So imo determinism does not contradict teleology. It does however contradict free will (as I understand it).

Thanks for the critique but I don't think I have to agree. Your entire objection rests on an unjustified assumption that once an event HAS happened, it would ALWAYS happen that way given the same state of the universe. Nobody can test such an assumption.
Secondly, the idea of an "exact" state of the universe means nothing more then rewinding time and playing back the "tape". You rewind 5 seconds, play, and see the same events again. Just like rewinding a tape in the VCR. "Exact" state of the universe is just playing back history after it's already been written.

Second, about thinking about the future. We don't alter the present "inadvertently", we alter it purposefully to meet our own future goals. In essence, it is OUR plans being worked on, not natures. Unless you want to say that every plan we think we make is actually the plan nature wants us to make. But that is also an unjustified assumption.

I still say that determinism contradicts teleology because determinism seems to suggest there is no alternate course of action, they we ARE bound by rules of which we cannot bend or escape. In a 100% deterministic world, I would expect to be like the rock. Either I would not be able to think about my own existence, or even if I could, I could not change the future.
We are always doing things to contradict nature's plan. When a person gets really sick, we predict they'll die. This is what nature will do if left to its own. That is nature's plan, but it is not OUR plan. We want people to get well, so we found ways to cure them, against the will of nature who would have them rot in bed. Every beauty product out there is meant to go against what nature has for our looks. To say that nature BOTH wants us to get sick and rot in bed, AND get better via medicine, is to say nature is divided against itself. As if it had two wills, both countering each other in an endless torrent of contradictory actions. Nature cannot both will self-preservation AND self-sacrifice. Nature does not "reason", it does not have feelings, it is not arbitrary. It is simply law, and it is followed, or, determined. Thus, determinism is false, otherwise nature itself is contradictory.


Peace

[Minnesota]

If you are up to just a tiny bit of reading, here is a good synopsis of various brands of libertarianism. (http://graphe.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/libertarianism-compatibilism-and-moral-responsiblity-a-philosophical-introduction-to-available-models-part-2/)Thanks. I can't read it now but will cretainly do so later.

[wolper]

Thanks for the critique but I don't think I have to agree. Your entire objection rests on an unjustified assumption that once an event HAS happened, it would ALWAYS happen that way given the same state of the universe. Nobody can test such an assumption.
You misunderstand me: I'm not advocating determinism. "Once an event has happened, it would always happen that way given the same state of the universe" is not my assumption of how the universe works, it's a definition (or at least the implication) of determinism. But I agree that it is untestable: it can not be proven nor disproven, but then neither can free will. As for me, I wouldn't know if determinism is true, it looks like it's not because we humans have a very strong feeling that we could choose differently the second time, but I can not rule it out as our intuitions can be deceptive. But as with Pixie's OP I'm intrigued by what the mechanism behind our choices is; what exactly determines the choices we make? Anyway, I think my point still stands: if (if!) determinism is true then that doesn't contradict our ability to plan future actions; it would just mean that in the same situation we would make the same plans and act the same way again.


Secondly, the idea of an "exact" state of the universe means nothing more then rewinding time and playing back the "tape". You rewind 5 seconds, play, and see the same events again. Just like rewinding a tape in the VCR. "Exact" state of the universe is just playing back history after it's already been written.Good analogy of what I'm trying to say. If we had real free will we could make different choices the second time history is played; if we can't, then the universe is 100% deterministic.



Second, about thinking about the future. We don't alter the present "inadvertently", we alter it purposefully to meet our own future goals. In essence, it is OUR plans being worked on, not natures. Unless you want to say that every plan we think we make is actually the plan nature wants us to make. But that is also an unjustified assumption.We do alter inadvertently all the time: the life of that bug I mindlessly stepped on today has significantly changed.... And btw, I'm not aware of any plan nature is making, or that it wants us to make a plan. Nature is mindless, it can not plan.


I still say that determinism contradicts teleology because determinism seems to suggest there is no alternate course of action, they we ARE bound by rules of which we cannot bend or escape. In a 100% deterministic world, I would expect to be like the rock. Either I would not be able to think about my own existence, or even if I could, I could not change the future.
I still do not understand why we would not be able to think about our future if the world was deterministic. Your other remark makes no sense; imo we can not change the future. How do you change something that hasn't happened yet? We can at best change the prospect of our future, yes, but determinism doesn't imply we can't do that, if only because our actions that change that prospect logically precede the changed prospect. The original prospect then simply never was to be, so there is no changed future. Determinism (again) just says that in a given situation we will always change the prospect in the same way with the same result.



We are always doing things to contradict nature's plan. When a person gets really sick, we predict they'll die. This is what nature will do if left to its own. That is nature's plan, but it is not OUR plan. We want people to get well, so we found ways to cure them, against the will of nature who would have them rot in bed. Every beauty product out there is meant to go against what nature has for our looks. To say that nature BOTH wants us to get sick and rot in bed, AND get better via medicine, is to say nature is divided against itself. As if it had two wills, both countering each other in an endless torrent of contradictory actions. Nature cannot both will self-preservation AND self-sacrifice. Nature does not "reason", it does not have feelings, it is not arbitrary. It is simply law, and it is followed, or, determined. Thus, determinism is false, otherwise nature itself is contradictory.
Now you're even more confusing. First you say "it is nature's plan to let people die if they're really sick", and later you admit "nature does not reason". Pray tell, how does one plan something if one can't reason? Why would you think that nature has a plan with sick people or with anything? Nature doesn't plan for people to get sick -that just happens- nor does it want us to make them better. Our plans to cure do not counter nature's plans, simply because nature has no plan.

[Minnesota]

If you are up to just a tiny bit of reading, here is a good synopsis of various brands of libertarianism. (http://graphe.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/libertarianism-compatibilism-and-moral-responsiblity-a-philosophical-introduction-to-available-models-part-2/)

I didn't bother reading the parts on simple compatibilism or causal compatibilism because O'Connor dismisses them. As for his agent-causation explanation, O'Connor (or the article's author) throws new terms and ideas around like bird seed. And lacking explanation I haven't the faintest of how to asses his claim or even divine what it is.

[Philosophickle]

Understood Minn. I have O'Connor's book, so I'll do a bit of homework when I get the time.

[shunyadragon]

Naturalist proof of determinism:

1) All things that happen conform to natural law
2) Natural law, then defines all causes and effects
3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause
4) Additionally, that choice must conform to natural law.
5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and the natural law that defines my choice.
6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined
7) Therefore, determinism is true.


1) All things that happen conform to God's law
2) God's law, then defines all causes and effects
3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause
4) Additionally, that choice must conform to God's law.
5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and God's law that defines my choice.
6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined
7) Therefore, Theism is true.

what's the difference?

This is more accruate from the naturalist perspective.

1) All things that happen conform to natural law. True.

2) Natural law, then defines all causes and effects. True, but there are multiple effects from any one or multiple causes.

3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause. There are different and variable effects from multiple related causes.

4) Additionally, that choice must conform to natural law. True.

5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and the natural law that defines my choice. True, you can't jump over the moon just because you want too, but any given circumstance may well have more than one possible choice.

6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined. True, but naturalism does not equate to determinism.

7) Therefore, determinism is true. No it isn't.

You missed one cause that has potentially multiple effects and that is free will.

[themuzicman]

1) All things that happen conform to God's law
2) God's law, then defines all causes and effects

These aren't true. God's law would require moral action in all cases, and we know this isn't true.


3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause
4) Additionally, that choice must conform to God's law.
5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and God's law that defines my choice.
6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined
7) Therefore, Theism is true.

what's the difference?

This is more accruate from the naturalist perspective.

1) All things that happen conform to natural law. True.

2) Natural law, then defines all causes and effects. True, but there are multiple effects from any one or multiple causes.

But these interactions are governed by the same natural law.


3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause. There are different and variable effects from multiple related causes.

Variable? They violate natural law?


4) Additionally, that choice must conform to natural law. True.

5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and the natural law that defines my choice. True, you can't jump over the moon just because you want too, but any given circumstance may well have more than one possible choice.

6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined. True, but naturalism does not equate to determinism.

Haven't made that assertion.


7) Therefore, determinism is true. No it isn't.

You missed one cause that has potentially multiple effects and that is free will.

You have yet to demonstrate that free will exists. My proof simply shows that from naturalism, there is no freedom.

Michael

[The Pixie]

Micheal

Naturalist proof of determinism:

1) All things that happen conform to natural law
2) Natural law, then defines all causes and effects
3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause
4) Additionally, that choice must conform to natural law.
5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and the natural law that defines my choice.
6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined
7) Therefore, determinism is true.
I think that the logic fails from point 2 to point 3. You are making the assumption that every effect has a cause. There are effects at the quantum level that seem to be causeless so this is an invalid assumption. It might be that free will is a further example of an effect with no cause, so it could be that when you chose there is no previous effect

My proof simply shows that from naturalism, there is no freedom.
It concluded that determinism is true. Why does that prove there is no freedom? I assume you mean freedom to choose, by the way.

Vigilante

Notice I said in a "mindless" world, all there is is nature and its laws. In a "100% deterministic" world, we cannot expect to find ANY entity which can plan for a future different than what the natural order leads. If ALL there is is physical law which does with us as it intends, planning for the future is fruitless and meaningless, cause you will end up where mother nature wants you.
Therefore, since this is NOT what we see in nature, it is NOT mindless, and people DO plan for the future, determinism is false.
Well in a mindless world there could also be randomness, as there is indeed in this world at the quantum level. It does not follow that in the absence of minds it must necessarily be true that there is only "nature and its laws".

But perhaps that is beside the real point, so let us suppose a "100% deterministic" world, in which randomness is excluded. I still believe you are wrong. The thing about a 100% deterministic world is that your decisions are inevitable, not that they are ignored. You make that choice because that is the choice "mother nature wants".

The purpose you see in a river is illusory. However, stick 5 humans at the mouth of the river, and you will have a completely unpredictable outcome. Maybe some will wade down stream. Some might take off sideways or climb up, maybe one will sit and have a bite to eat. Hardly as predictable as the river.
So you see unpredictability as an indicator of free will?

It is not deterministic, it is rationality. Don't assume just because a robot who is programmed with absolute rules and chooses a bus, means every human would choose the bus as well. Not all humans have the same rules, ascribe the same value to any particular variable.
Ah, but that is the point. We all have different rules and values, so we reach different and unpredictable decisions. But perhaps it is all rules and values, just like the robot.

Not everybody is as rational as a robot.
Ah, so acting irrationally is a sign of free will. Could you give an example of when you have acted irrationally to illustrate what you mean? Why did you do it?

And I think it is precisely because we DON'T have some absolute rules within us, we are free. For example, a human may not take the bus if she sees some pretty shady characters getting on. A robot would probably care less about it's own "feelings" regarding the character of other passengers. Therefore the bus may in fact be the quickest and most efficient choice, but she chooses to take the car based only on some feelings about the character of other people. All this takes place in her mind. It is not gravity or the speed of light or any mathematical formula that is making her choose it. It is just her feelings, which may not be shared by any other human.
Sure, but this is just different criteria and priorities. The robot could be programmed to assess how "shady" the bus passengers appear and to take that into account. The robot could be programmed to consider its own survival, and to be able assess risks to its own survival based on a life time of its own experiences and those gleaned from television.

So basically, if ONLY predeterministic natural laws were working, ALL humans would end up feeling uncomfortable with the shady characters and would choose the car. But it is not so. Why should nature allow every human to think differently? It doesn't let every water molecule act differently than other water molecules. Experience doesn't matter either. You can take some experienced Lake Erie water and put it in a river in the Amazon and it will act just like the other Amazon water.
I am a little concerned that you think water could be "experienced". Could I suggest that experience involves memory?

Laws of nature don't tell me when precisely to get out of bed, or exactly how hot to make my shower water, or any number of things that I first THINK about before ACTING on them. Nature is its own force, if you will, nature doesn't first make us think to follow gravity and then have us act on it. Nature forces gravity upon us whether we like it or not. So the very fact that I can think of something I want, and then act in order to reach that goal, means that nature is not forcing this upon me.
You might argue that biological nature may in fact force me to choose an apple or an orange, but this makes nature an extremely intelligent fellow, cause he deals with every mind differently. Seems to me if deaf dumb blind ignorant nature were forcing things on people, then ALL people would be forced the same way. But instead it seems nature is dealing with everybody differently. Which I think it cannot do. And so some other force is at work.
Nature is an intelligent enough fellow to make oranges grow on orange trees and apples on apple trees, so perhaps he is clever enough to make different people have different tastes.

Vig: Name ANY natural entity that can think about the future. Even animals have very very limited, if at all, ability to plan for the future or work for future goals. It would seem humans and ONLY humans, have this vast complicated thing called final causes. WE plan for a future goal, and WE make the choices to reach that goal, irregardless of external stimuli, if we are so dedicated.
.
Pix: Sorry, I do not understand why this is relevant. Sure, human's are the only really intelligent entities we know about (though who can say what else is out there across the universe). Why should that lead us to reject determinism, or accept free will?
.
Vig: I reject determinism because I am able to THINK about a goal and then ACT to get there, despite what natural law might have for me. I can act AGAINST the natural idea of self-preservation. I can choose to be selfish or selfless, to give or to take, to sacrifice for somebody or ignore them. These are opposing views and it wouldn't seem right for nature to allow contradictory flows of action. I mean, nature doesn't let water flow down one day and up the next, if you follow. So it seems to me if self-preservation was nature's way, there simply would not BE self-sacrifice and altruism. So either we are acting against nature by doing contradictory actions, or nature can't make up its mind.
What am I missing here? You made a big point before about how humans are special, only they can plan for the future. When I ask you how that is relevant, you do not mention anything about the uniqueness of humans.

I still say that determinism contradicts teleology because determinism seems to suggest there is no alternate course of action, they we ARE bound by rules of which we cannot bend or escape. In a 100% deterministic world, I would expect to be like the rock. Either I would not be able to think about my own existence, or even if I could, I could not change the future.
Can you change the future? Many people believe that God has already seen the future. How then could it be possible to change it? How can you ever know that your attempts to change the future were not inevitable and preordained from the beginning of time? That does not mean we do not affect the future, but that our "free" choices are determined entirely by our life experiences, our genetics and our perception of the situation.

We are always doing things to contradict nature's plan.
Nature's plan? You think nature is telic? Surely this contradicts your previous claims about teleology?

When a person gets really sick, we predict they'll die. This is what nature will do if left to its own. That is nature's plan, but it is not OUR plan. We want people to get well, so we found ways to cure them, against the will of nature who would have them rot in bed. Every beauty product out there is meant to go against what nature has for our looks. To say that nature BOTH wants us to get sick and rot in bed, AND get better via medicine, is to say nature is divided against itself. As if it had two wills, both countering each other in an endless torrent of contradictory actions. Nature cannot both will self-preservation AND self-sacrifice. Nature does not "reason", it does not have feelings, it is not arbitrary. It is simply law, and it is followed, or, determined. Thus, determinism is false, otherwise nature itself is contradictory.
Your argument seems to be based on this idea of "nature's plan", a concept at odds with your own argument. If we reject the premise that nature has a plan (and we surely must) then your argument falls apart.

Shunyadragon

1) All things that happen conform to God's law
2) God's law, then defines all causes and effects
3) Thus, when I choose, it is an effect of a previous cause
4) Additionally, that choice must conform to God's law.
5) Thus, I am only able to choose based upon the cause of my circumstance, and God's law that defines my choice.
6) Determinism says that choices are externally determined
7) Therefore, Theism is true.

what's the difference?
The difference is that themuzicman stated his assumption first - a Naturalist proof of determinism. If we assume natutralism, then it follows that determinism is true. Your argument is based on the assumption that all things that happen conform to God's law, and conclude that theism is true. Well, yes, okay. If all things conform to God's law, then clearly God exists. Why bother with ppints 2 to 6?

[themuzicman]

I think that the logic fails from point 2 to point 3. You are making the assumption that every effect has a cause. There are effects at the quantum level that seem to be causeless so this is an invalid assumption. It might be that free will is a further example of an effect with no cause, so it could be that when you chose there is no previous effect

I think this is a result of our lack of knowledge.. clearly this is something that is a potential problem, but in general, natural law embraces cause and effect.

Michael

[The Pixie]

Micheal

Pix: I think that the logic fails from point 2 to point 3. You are making the assumption that every effect has a cause. There are effects at the quantum level that seem to be causeless so this is an invalid assumption. It might be that free will is a further example of an effect with no cause, so it could be that when you chose there is no previous effect
.
Micheal: I think this is a result of our lack of knowledge.. clearly this is something that is a potential problem, but in general, natural law embraces cause and effect.
Sure, it could be due to our lack of knowledge, but scientists can make predictions based on the assumption of randomness, for example, in statistical thermodynamics, so there is some evidence there. But the very fact that we do not know makes your logic suspect. You are making the assumption that every effect has a cause, even though there is some evidence that this is not true. And if we do not know either way, how can you base your argument on it?

Do you personally believe that free will can operate in the absence of a cause?

[themuzicman]

Micheal

Sure, it could be due to our lack of knowledge, but scientists can make predictions based on the assumption of randomness, for example, in statistical thermodynamics, so there is some evidence there. But the very fact that we do not know makes your logic suspect. You are making the assumption that every effect has a cause, even though there is some evidence that this is not true. And if we do not know either way, how can you base your argument on it?

Because this has been one of the bases for natural and scientific laws for some time.


Do you personally believe that free will can operate in the absence of a cause?

Well, I don't really have to abandon cause and effect or natural law, per se, but when you introduce deity, there is the potential for things to exist and operate apart from natural law.

Michael

[Vigilante]

You're still not following me Pixie, lemme try again.


Well in a mindless world there could also be randomness, as there is indeed in this world at the quantum level. It does not follow that in the absence of minds it must necessarily be true that there is only "nature and its laws".
No there is not randomness at the quantum level "indeed". The book is hardly closed. Just because we don't know some stuff, doesn't make it random. Randomness is an illusion, it means "we can't find/don't know the cause". The idea of randomness is based on our ignorance of things, not our knowledge of things.


But perhaps that is beside the real point, so let us suppose a "100% deterministic" world, in which randomness is excluded. I still believe you are wrong. The thing about a 100% deterministic world is that your decisions are inevitable, not that they are ignored. You make that choice because that is the choice "mother nature wants".
This is nothing but an assertion and belief of yours at this point. Of course you can say after every event, "well, must have been the way nature wanted it". But you can't prove that. In fact, if you can say that about every event, the idea of morality and justice don't make sense. Whatever happens, it could not have been any other way, so why punish people? Don't you think training your children to be good people is a useful enterprise? Maybe you shouldn't, since you can't change the future right?

Also this might be a good point to enter in some theology. Note that, let's say, we have two governing forces, Nature and God. Nature, as we know, is deaf, dumb, blind, etc... Nature is a set of rules that all chunks of atoms obey, but it does not plan a future for you, it does not suspend its laws for you. While God, on the other hand, is intelligent, wise, etc... God also is a set of rules, however, it CAN suspend those rules by its own will if it chooses. Second, it DOES have a plan for your existence that may be different from the next chunk of atoms. Third, you are bound by its sovereignty, not its laws. In other words, you CAN make choices, but God allows or disallows those choices. Nature does not allow or disallow, you have no choice but to obey its laws. And God does give you choice, though your choices pass under his sovereign control.

So given these two "powers that be", which better represents what we find on earth? Nature, deaf, dumb and blind with no plans except that all hunks of atoms obey the rules, red in tooth and claw? Or God, sovereign over choices, with a plan for everything, able to suspend the rules if it wants and communicate such plans to people?
Note that a "plan" may not be that your toothbrush hits your teeth smack at 7:35:85pm at just such an angle. But rather an overarching plan about the substance and meaning of your life.

So think hard about it, which seems more the case in reality? Also note that if God is the answer, that doesn't mean Nature doesn't exist. But if Nature is the answer, certainly God doesn't exist.


So you see unpredictability as an indicator of free will?
No. But as far as our ability to think about these things, it can be. That is to say, a human could never predict the movement of pool balls if a cat or two is on the table. A human couldn't, I'm sure God could. I doubt Nature could. You can generalize your predictions, such as, "surely the cat will get in the way, surely a ball will be blocked." But even with advanced knowledge of cat behavior and psychology, you cannot predict which ball he might play with, or if he'll might walk one way and put his paw in just such a spot. Since a HUMAN cannot predict this event, I think it is OK for humans to reason that free choice is involved, the variable in the equation that cannot be solved by any means except to wait and witness the event as it unfolds. Since humans, we would agree, are the smartest darn chunks of atoms on earth, there is no other intelligence to get an answer from. So according to this unpredictability, I think it's safe to call the unsolvable variable, "free will".
If there is another intelligence that does know and can predict, then we don't know what formula it uses to know what the cat does, so it doesn't do much good thinking about it. The fact is, from OUR perspective, the act is free choice. If another entity is making some rules, we have no cognitive way of recognizing it, because to us, we think we are really choosing things of our own will. Despite the outcome of this debate, we really DO think we are making choices for ourselves. I have never felt like I wasn't in control of my choices, I think about stuff, and I do stuff. I don't feel like anybody made me. And if somebody IS making me, they haven't given me a way to recognize it in my life, so I don't need to worry about it.
I could have said more about God and theology, but I'm trying to leave it out at this point.


Ah, but that is the point. We all have different rules and values, so we reach different and unpredictable decisions. But perhaps it is all rules and values, just like the robot.
Can't be, otherwise all thinking creatures, as would all robots, have the same rules and values. Because we all have the SAME teacher in Nature. Now, it could be that the Chinese make a robot which has different values than an American robot, because the Chinese and Americans have different values. But in reality, there is no Chinese Nature and American Nature. We would all be the SAME. And since we are NOT all the same, either there are many Natures programming us, or we transcended the programming of nature, to do OTHERWISE what Nature intends. If we are doing otherwise what Nature intends, then that is what I would call our free choices. A choice to disobey.


Ah, so acting irrationally is a sign of free will. Could you give an example of when you have acted irrationally to illustrate what you mean? Why did you do it?
You think there are no examples in this world of people acting irrationally? Go visit prisons some time.


Sure, but this is just different criteria and priorities. The robot could be programmed to assess how "shady" the bus passengers appear and to take that into account. The robot could be programmed to consider its own survival, and to be able assess risks to its own survival based on a life time of its own experiences and those gleaned from television.
Well now we are arguing on analogies, but I would think it is not in the best interest of the designer to let a robot learn from TV. Nor would it be best to program a prejudice robot. What if one gets SOLD to the shady character? Is the robot going to run and hide?


Nature is an intelligent enough fellow to make oranges grow on orange trees and apples on apple trees, so perhaps he is clever enough to make different people have different tastes.
You don't understand, there nothing "clever" about Nature. It is deaf dumb and blind, it has no plans, no goals, no hopes, no dreams. When you start talking about Nature, which is nothing but a set of absolute laws and rules, physics, etc... there is nothing "clever" about it. When you start talking this way, when Nature starts having intelligence, cleverness, goals and plans, you are LEAVING natural determinism and going in to God-land. Nature does not know or care that apples and oranges are different, nor that humans should eat them or distinguish their flavors. Yet it IS that way, why? Doesn't sound like dumb and blind processes to me.


What am I missing here? You made a big point before about how humans are special, only they can plan for the future. When I ask you how that is relevant, you do not mention anything about the uniqueness of humans.
We both know how unique humans are, that we think about the way we want to act, unlike any other chunk of atoms. Another clue that the absolute forces of Nature alone are not what is controlling us.


Can you change the future? Many people believe that God has already seen the future. How then could it be possible to change it?
God has not just "seen" the future, God has ordained the future. He is sovereign over choices, and thus knows what is going on. It may be kind of like in The Matrix when Neo is learning about things, the Oracle tells him "you've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it." God knows your choices before you do, he sees all time at once. He is not linear like us.


How can you ever know that your attempts to change the future were not inevitable and preordained from the beginning of time?
Why should I attempt to change the future? Do I somehow already KNOW the future and thus would want to change it? In any case, your question is valid, but it is also valid, "how can you know if they ARE preordained"?


That does not mean we do not affect the future, but that our "free" choices are determined entirely by our life experiences, our genetics and our perception of the situation.
You say "our" as if we were somehow free to reason these things to our own ends. If Nature is in control, it is she who determines, not you. If it is YOU who determines, then that seems to be the definition of free will.


Nature's plan? You think nature is telic? Surely this contradicts your previous claims about teleology?
Stop being so serious, you know I just mean "plan" as in being subject uncontrollably to her laws. Nature's "plan" is just that all chunks of atoms obey the rules, they are never suspended, everything cause and effect in a cascade through time. No to random, no to free choice.


Your argument seems to be based on this idea of "nature's plan", a concept at odds with your own argument. If we reject the premise that nature has a plan (and we surely must) then your argument falls apart.
I just explained what Nature's plan is, it is a metaphor. In any case, the argument stands. Your objection is based on the possible but unlikely existence of true randomness. Quantum physics do not provide even close to an adequate argument for randomness. It is a new field of study and we don't know enough about it yet to say that. You also base your objection on a simple question, "but how to you KNOW it is not X", which is easily countered with, "but how do you know it IS X". Neither of which should automatically get the "default" choice. Neither is obviously correct, neither requires any more evidence than the other to be true. They both require support to believe, neither has burden of proof intrinsically. Lastly, your objection is based on a simple assumption that once an event HAS happened, we can simply say it is impossible that it could have been any other way. And nobody is under obligation to accept that assumption, since it is begging the question and is the very topic under debate.

And in conclusion, even if your assumption is true, nobody LIVES that way. We all have an internal sense of justice that people DO make free choices, and are thus responsible for their actions. If your assumption is true, then a murderer who rapes and kills a child is no more morally responsible for his actions than a tree falling and crushing her. You can do nothing to the tree, it is just matter in motion, and likewise, we could do nothing to the man, he is matter in motion. But we do not live this way, we CANNOT live this way. And I think that is a clue that the assumption is false. We would be living in denial and need to come to grips with the truth, and get rid of justice, get rid of mercy, get rid of morals. People cannot be responsible because people cannot make free choices.

To put that denial in an example. Suppose next week a group of scientists declare that rocks are actually soft and not hard, they aren't dangerous. I mean, these are smart people, they have scientific experiments, they said rocks are soft and not hard. The problem is, nobody can live as if that were true. Mothers still tell their boys not to throw rocks at people, nobody is using rocks as a punching bag, or choosing a pile of them for a pillow. We still don't kick any big ones with our bare toes. So regardless of what the scientists tell us, nobody can live as though it were true. And I think that is the first clue that the scientists were wrong about it.
Likewise, if every action is determined, by unintelligent blind forces, then people are not responsible for their actions. For they could not act otherwise. Yet, we cannot live this way, we do not live this way. And I think that is a clue that the hypothesis is false.



Peace

[Genesius]

Do we choose how to weight decisions?


I believe in some situations we do. What do you think?



And if we do, are those choices dictated by external factors (including past experiences and genetics), or merely influences by them?
Sure, we can change our priorities. But do we change them for no reason at all? Can you think of any occasion in your life when your priorities changed for no reason?


Please help me answer your question by explaining what you see as the differences between "dictates" vs "merely influences".

Then perhaps you can tell me which one more accurately describes how external factors affect your decisions.



What do you mean by the ' "logical" determined action'? People do stupid things all the time, but they (I suggest) always have some reason for it, whether that reason is to get somewhere faster, to make life easier, to look cool in front of their friends, etc.


What you describe here is people doing a logical action. As you suggest, there is always a reason. Yet even when we can determine what the reason is and what the best course of action is, we still can choose to perform the opposite. Is this definitely demonstrable that free-will exists? I suppose it isn't.

One could speculate that even choosing to go against a reason for a course of action has some reasoning behind it; such that there is too much influence on our will, thus we are not free. The only option I see available to one who is determined to argue that we do not have free-will, is to say that what we perceive as free-will is an illusion. This seems to me rather impractical, if not impossible. If free-will is an illusion, I suspect there is no way of knowing and further, that we are all deceived.

[shunyadragon]

These aren't true. God's law would require moral action in all cases, and we know this isn't true.


All you are saying is humans potentially make good and choices under God's Law. In the natural world God's natural law rules no differently than in the worldview with only natural law. Though in evolution, the right choices under a system of morals, can lead to a survival advantage when social morals are obeyed, or without social morals to maintain a community humans would not survive.




But these interactions are governed by the same natural law.

True, but natural law does not determine specific effects, natural law only determines the range of possible effects. There are many combinations of cause and effect that are demonstrated to be not predetermined, especially in QM, as already noted.




Variable? They violate natural law?

False, there are many possible choices that do not violate natural law. I may chose to eat eggs or ceral for breakfast without violating natural law. Natural law does not perclude free will if it occurs within the constraints of natural law.


Haven't made that assertion.

Good!


You have yet to demonstrate that free will exists. My proof simply shows that from naturalism, there is no freedom.

There is no proof that free will exists or not, and no your proof simply shows nothing of the sort. Natural law only establishes the limits of freedom of choice, and does not determine whether there is choice or not.

As stated before in QM there are random events that lack a cause.

[themuzicman]

All you are saying is humans potentially make good and choices under God's Law. In the natural world God's natural law rules no differently than in the worldview with only natural law. Though in evolution, the right choices under a system of morals, can lead to a survival advantage when social morals are obeyed, or without social morals to maintain a community humans would not survive.

OK, you're moving out of the realm of natural law, now. Natural law are the laws that define the physical universe. Without something that moves outside of physical laws, everything that happens happens precisely as Natural Law defines.

God's law is more moral law, and if God creates free will agents whose will isn't subject to natural law, then and only then can we have free will.

The natural laws that govern our brains may develop social morals, but they would be predetermined by natural law.


True, but natural law does not determine specific effects, natural law only determines the range of possible effects. There are many combinations of cause and effect that are demonstrated to be not predetermined, especially in QM, as already noted.

What? Are you saying that when I drop something in a vacuum with earth's gravity acting upon it that it won't fall at the same rate every time?


False, there are many possible choices that do not violate natural law. I may chose to eat eggs or ceral for breakfast without violating natural law. Natural law does not perclude free will if it occurs within the constraints of natural law.

You're at way too high a level. How does your brain's chemistry that makes your decisions escape the natural law that governs how your brain chemicals interact?


There is no proof that free will exists or not, and no your proof simply shows nothing of the sort. Natural law only establishes the limits of freedom of choice, and does not determine whether there is choice or not. [

Again, Natural law defines at least down to the atomic particle level how each particle must act. There isn't a range of things that HCL and OH could do when they come into contact. They do the same thing every time by natural law.


As stated before in QM there are random events that lack a cause.

That's the one potential hole I see in my argument, but I'm fairly sure that after further study, we'll discover the law the governs them.

Michael

[The Pixie]

Micheal

Because this has been one of the bases for natural and scientific laws for some time.
Well, yes, but now it has been rejected. It seems odd to still cling to it.

Pix: Do you personally believe that free will can operate in the absence of a cause?
.
Micheal: Well, I don't really have to abandon cause and effect or natural law, per se, but when you introduce deity, there is the potential for things to exist and operate apart from natural law.
Sorry, I am not clear how this answers my question. Do you think you make choices that have no cause, whether natural or supernatural?

Vigilante

You're still not following me Pixie, lemme try again.



No there is not randomness at the quantum level "indeed". The book is hardly closed. Just because we don't know some stuff, doesn't make it random. Randomness is an illusion, it means "we can't find/don't know the cause". The idea of randomness is based on our ignorance of things, not our knowledge of things.
That is not entirely right. Randomness is not necessarily an illusion. You are doing the same thing that you admonish me for; because we don't know some stuff, doesn't make it illusion. What we should do is agree we do not know.

There are different sorts of random. When evolutionists say mutations are random with respect to fitness, what they mean is there is no correlation with fitness, even in cases where the cause can be determined. In quantum mechanics, randomness means that even if the conditions are identical, the outcome will still be unpredicable. Radioactive decay of a specific atom is believed to be random.

Pix: But perhaps that is beside the real point, so let us suppose a "100% deterministic" world, in which randomness is excluded. I still believe you are wrong. The thing about a 100% deterministic world is that your decisions are inevitable, not that they are ignored. You make that choice because that is the choice "mother nature wants".
.
Vigilante: This is nothing but an assertion and belief of yours at this point. Of course you can say after every event, "well, must have been the way nature wanted it". But you can't prove that.
More of thought experiment, really, at this stage.

So given these two "powers that be", which better represents what we find on earth? Nature, deaf, dumb and blind with no plans except that all hunks of atoms obey the rules, red in tooth and claw? Or God, sovereign over choices, with a plan for everything, able to suspend the rules if it wants and communicate such plans to people?
Note that a "plan" may not be that your toothbrush hits your teeth smack at 7:35:85pm at just such an angle. But rather an overarching plan about the substance and meaning of your life.
So think hard about it, which seems more the case in reality? Also note that if God is the answer, that doesn't mean Nature doesn't exist. But if Nature is the answer, certainly God doesn't exist.
I see no sign of any "plan about the substance and meaning of your life".

No. But as far as our ability to think about these things, it can be. That is to say, a human could never predict the movement of pool balls if a cat or two is on the table. A human couldn't, I'm sure God could. I doubt Nature could. You can generalize your predictions, such as, "surely the cat will get in the way, surely a ball will be blocked." But even with advanced knowledge of cat behavior and psychology, you cannot predict which ball he might play with, or if he'll might walk one way and put his paw in just such a spot. Since a HUMAN cannot predict this event, I think it is OK for humans to reason that free choice is involved, the variable in the equation that cannot be solved by any means except to wait and witness the event as it unfolds. Since humans, we would agree, are the smartest darn chunks of atoms on earth, there is no other intelligence to get an answer from. So according to this unpredictability, I think it's safe to call the unsolvable variable, "free will".
But humans cannot predict when an atom of cobalt-60 will decay either, or the trajectory of a molecule of nitrogen. Does that indicate they have free will? Of course not.

The fact is, from OUR perspective, the act is free choice. If another entity is making some rules, we have no cognitive way of recognizing it, because to us, we think we are really choosing things of our own will. Despite the outcome of this debate, we really DO think we are making choices for ourselves. I have never felt like I wasn't in control of my choices, I think about stuff, and I do stuff. I don't feel like anybody made me. And if somebody IS making me, they haven't given me a way to recognize it in my life, so I don't need to worry about it.
Substitute "another entity is making some rules" for determinism, and I think that paragraph still makes sense.

Can't be, otherwise all thinking creatures, as would all robots, have the same rules and values.
We all look different. Why should we all think the same?

Because we all have the SAME teacher in Nature.
But my genetics are different to yours. My upbringing was different to yours. I have a whole lifetime of experiences that are all different to yours. Of course we have different priorities and values.

You think there are no examples in this world of people acting irrationally? Go visit prisons some time.
Why do you think people commit crimes? They have different priorities and values, but they still have priorities and values. People steal because they want the loot without the bother of working for it, and they perceive they chanes of getting caught as small. To you that may be irrational, but that is because you have your set of prioritiers and values. This is why I was asking for you to give a persional account of when you acted irrationally, so we could understand what happened.

Well now we are arguing on analogies, but I would think it is not in the best interest of the designer to let a robot learn from TV. Nor would it be best to program a prejudice robot. What if one gets SOLD to the shady character? Is the robot going to run and hide?
I suspect people get a lot of their attitudes from TV, and the fear of the shady character probably stems from watching to many crime shows and sensationalised news shows. I wanted the robot to get up to speed on that. And I am not to happy about sell robots that might turn out to have free will!

Nature is an intelligent enough fellow to make oranges grow on orange trees and apples on apple trees, so perhaps he is clever enough to make different people have different tastes.
You don't understand, there nothing "clever" about Nature. It is deaf dumb and blind, it has no plans, no goals, no hopes, no dreams. When you start talking about Nature, which is nothing but a set of absolute laws and rules, physics, etc... there is nothing "clever" about it. When you start talking this way, when Nature starts having intelligence, cleverness, goals and plans, you are LEAVING natural determinism and going in to God-land. Nature does not know or care that apples and oranges are different, nor that humans should eat them or distinguish their flavors. Yet it IS that way, why? Doesn't sound like dumb and blind processes to me.[/quote]


What am I missing here? You made a big point before about how humans are special, only they can plan for the future. When I ask you how that is relevant, you do not mention anything about the uniqueness of humans.

We both know how unique humans are, that we think about the way we want to act, unlike any other chunk of atoms. Another clue that the absolute forces of Nature alone are not what is controlling us.
I am not disputing the position of humans on the planet. I do not understand why this is a clue about how nature is not controlling us.

Pix: Can you change the future? Many people believe that God has already seen the future. How then could it be possible to change it?
.
Vigilante: God has not just "seen" the future, God has ordained the future. He is sovereign over choices, and thus knows what is going on. It may be kind of like in The Matrix when Neo is learning about things, the Oracle tells him "you've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it." God knows your choices before you do, he sees all time at once. He is not linear like us.
So that seems to confirm my point; you cannot change the future.



Vigilante: In a 100% deterministic world, I would expect to be like the rock. Either I would not be able to think about my own existence, or even if I could, I could not change the future.
.
Pix: How can you ever know that your attempts to change the future were not inevitable and preordained from the beginning of time?
.
Micheal: Why should I attempt to change the future? Do I somehow already KNOW the future and thus would want to change it? In any case, your question is valid, but it is also valid, "how can you know if they ARE preordained"?
Okay, so in the 100% deterministic world you believe you could not change the future, and also in the theistic world you could not either.

You say "our" as if we were somehow free to reason these things to our own ends. If Nature is in control, it is she who determines, not you. If it is YOU who determines, then that seems to be the definition of free will.
But just a few lines ago you said nature is not intelligent, cannot plan. If I plan something, then it cannot be nature doing it, can it?

I just explained what Nature's plan is, it is a metaphor. In any case, the argument stands. Your objection is based on the possible but unlikely existence of true randomness. Quantum physics do not provide even close to an adequate argument for randomness. It is a new field of study and we don't know enough about it yet to say that.
Actually quantum theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum) is over 100 years old, though admittedly it was the 1920's before it really got going.

You also base your objection on a simple question, "but how to you KNOW it is not X", which is easily countered with, "but how do you know it IS X".
Then let us go with "we do not know" whether there is randomness, and see how our claims stand up.

And in conclusion, even if your assumption is true, nobody LIVES that way.
Nobody lives as though they do not have free will? Well, firstly I suspect they do have free will. But perhaps they do not and only live as though they have no free will because they have no choice in the matter?

We would be living in denial and need to come to grips with the truth, and get rid of justice, get rid of mercy, get rid of morals. People cannot be responsible because people cannot make free choices.
But they cannot in your schema; God has already ordained everything, you said earlier. Whether I go on a killing spree or find Jesus, I have no choice; it is already determined. So how can it be right to judge me either way?

Genesius

Pix: Do we choose how to weight decisions?
.
Genesius: I believe in some situations we do. What do you think?
I do not know. I am sure in some cases we do not, but all the time? How could we tell?

Please help me answer your question by explaining what you see as the differences between "dictates" vs "merely influences".
"Dicates" means that these are the only causes or reasons, while "merely influences" allows for some other factor to be involved, which takes account of those causes but is free to override them.

Then perhaps you can tell me which one more accurately describes how external factors affect your decisions.
I think all my decisions are dicated on external factors (including genetic propensities and past experience). I have no idea what else could be involved.

What you describe here is people doing a logical action. As you suggest, there is always a reason. Yet even when we can determine what the reason is and what the best course of action is, we still can choose to perform the opposite. Is this definitely demonstrable that free-will exists? I suppose it isn't.
Could you give an example from your own experience? Why did you do the opposite?

[themuzicman]

Well, yes, but now it has been rejected. It seems odd to still cling to it.



It's been questioned, I'm not sure it's been rejected.

Michael

[shunyadragon]

OK, you're moving out of the realm of natural law, now. Natural law are the laws that define the physical universe. Without something that moves outside of physical laws, everything that happens happens precisely as Natural Law defines.


False, free will decisions cannot move out of the realm of natural law. Free will decisions happen precisely as natural law dictates. the result of any decision we make will result in an effect within the constraints of natural law.


God's law is more moral law, and if God creates free will agents whose will isn't subject to natural law, then and only then can we have free will.

More moral law? How could you explain 'More' in the context of God. There is no evidence that free will agents 'humans' are not subject to natural law. Can you provide evidence that humans can operate out side natural law? Maybe superman, spiderman or maybe batman?

Free will decisions by themselves do not violate natural law. there is no evidence that they would do this.


The natural laws that govern our brains may develop social morals, but they would be predetermined by natural law.

The range of the social morals would be predetermined by the limits of natural law, but there is the free will option for humans to follow social morals without breaking natural law.


What? Are you saying that when I drop something in a vacuum with earth's gravity acting upon it that it won't fall at the same rate every time?

True, gravity is not constant.


You're at way too high a level. How does your brain's chemistry that makes your decisions escape the natural law that governs how your brain chemicals interact?

Free will decisions are a part of the function of the brains chemistry. The brain is not like a mechanical watch with no options. The variables of neurological functions of our brain allow for variable responses for free will.



Again, Natural law defines at least down to the atomic particle level how each particle must act. There isn't a range of things that HCL and OH could do when they come into contact. They do the same thing every time by natural law.

Yes, there is a range for these reaction based on variable factors like temperature and concentration, but nontheless our biochemistry is not that simple, and the more factors and variables there are we have fractal relationships which determine that the same thing does not happen everytime according to natural law.


That's the one potential hole I see in my argument, but I'm fairly sure that after further study, we'll discover the law the governs them.

Michael It is not the only hole. The nature of natural law does not operate like a simple watch as you describe.

[thaum]

Free will is an illusion in the most objective sense. Our brains are physical systems bound to the physical laws of the universe, and they can only proceed in one direction. However, as far as we as thinking beings are concerned, we have the ability to make choices, and so it's useless to go into such existential spirals of self-doubt over whether or not free will exists.

Subjectively, you have the ability to make a choice. You can't be sure about anyone else: they might all be mindless zombies that only appear to be making choices. However, it's irrelevant: regardless of whether or not free will exists, you experience the ability to make a choice based on thought and reasoning, and there's no good reason to behave as if you don't.

It's interesting to consider the free will of others. There is no possible way to determine if other people have the same experience of free will as you do, or if they even experience free will or thought at all. But again, it doesn't matter. To you, it appears as if everyone else is able to think as you can. So why does it matter if they actually have a mind?

It's the difference between an action that occurs at the most basic level, that of the physical world, and an action that is more abstracted through layers of human thought and interaction. If a ball rolls off a table, gravity will pull it towards the earth and it will fall to the ground. This is inevitable (as long as the law of gravity holds. There is no good reason to assume that it will not.).

Let's assume a person is watching the ball fall. Turning to the mind, it is inevitable that light particles bouncing off the ball will strike the rods and cones of a person's eye, initiating the series of electrical triggers that creates the sensation of viewing a ball in the mind of that person observing the ball. Let us assume that this sets off a chain reaction in that person's brain that will lead their body to walk towards the ball, kneel down, pick it up, and place it back on the table. In the mind of the person, they see the ball, think, "Oh. I should put that back.", and then make the choice to take action and put the ball back from where it fell.

Of course, this isn't saying that looking at a ball fall from a table will cause you to pick it up. The point is that any choices you think you are making are simply the outcomes of the reactions of chemicals and electric pulses in a lower level system (your brain), which create the experience of conscious thought (your mind).

[shunyadragon]

Free will is an illusion in the most objective sense. Our brains are physical systems bound to the physical laws of the universe, and they can only proceed in one direction.

This misrepresents the concept of Free Will as the potential mechanism that enables animals (for the most part humans) to differentiate and make choices in a decision making process. Variation in the outcome of the nature of events over time at most basic level of the physical functioning of the human brain may proceed in more than on direction because of the non-linear nature of fractal relationships over time when there is many variables.

Actually, the chaotic fractal nature of many events, can in itself, cloud the boundary and the difference between those decisions that are determined by free will, or predetermined by other factors.


However, as far as we as thinking beings are concerned, we have the ability to make choices, and so it's useless to go into such existential spirals of self-doubt over whether or not free will exists.

It is true that it is, at present, difficult to prove of even justify conclusively the existence of free will. But i consider it more than a useless exercise to discuss or debate the nature of and potential of free will.


Subjectively, you have the ability to make a choice. You can't be sure about anyone else: they might all be mindless zombies that only appear to be making choices. However, it's irrelevant: regardless of whether or not free will exists, you experience the ability to make a choice based on thought and reasoning, and there's no good reason to behave as if you don't.

True, ah . . . maybe.


It's interesting to consider the free will of others. There is no possible way to determine if other people have the same experience of free will as you do, or if they even experience free will or thought at all. But again, it doesn't matter. To you, it appears as if everyone else is able to think as you can. So why does it matter if they actually have a mind?

I believe it is equally difficult to objectively evaluate our own potential to make free will decisions than to judge this ability in others.


It's the difference between an action that occurs at the most basic level, that of the physical world, and an action that is more abstracted through layers of human thought and interaction. If a ball rolls off a table, gravity will pull it towards the earth and it will fall to the ground. This is inevitable (as long as the law of gravity holds. There is no good reason to assume that it will not.).

Again, your stepping outside the realms where potential free will applies.


Let's assume a person is watching the ball fall. Turning to the mind, it is inevitable that light particles bouncing off the ball will strike the rods and cones of a person's eye, initiating the series of electrical triggers that creates the sensation of viewing a ball in the mind of that person observing the ball. Let us assume that this sets off a chain reaction in that person's brain that will lead their body to walk towards the ball, kneel down, pick it up, and place it back on the table. In the mind of the person, they see the ball, think, "Oh. I should put that back.", and then make the choice to take action and put the ball back from where it fell.

Of course, this isn't saying that looking at a ball fall from a table will cause you to pick it up. The point is that any choices you think you are making are simply the outcomes of the reactions of chemicals and electric pulses in a lower level system (your brain), which create the experience of conscious thought (your mind).

Here your stepping back into the realm of the potential of free will decisions.

[thaum]

Arg... this forum makes more than one layer of quotes a chore.


Variation in the outcome of the nature of events over time at most basic level of the physical functioning of the human brain may proceed in more than on direction because of the non-linear nature of fractal relationships over time when there is many variables.

I am unfamiliar with this concept. Please elaborate or provide links, I'm interested. This appears to be saying that when a system has many variables, it must also have many possible outcomes, which is not true in many situations. Certainly in a multi-variable system with several initial parameters, many different outcomes are possible. However, each outcome will be the same if the initial parameters are the same, and our universe has already been seeded with the "initial parameters" of the Big Bang, or whatever event preceded that (irrelevant, since no information can survive a big bang event.).


Actually, the chaotic fractal nature of many events, can in itself, cloud the boundary and the difference between those decisions that are determined by free will, or predetermined by other factors.

If you model an event with a high-level system (as the mind interprets it rather than the reality of particles bouncing around), you'll have a very inaccurate model by the standards of the real world. The laws of physics are the perfect simulation for the universe, after all, they run the universe! If you could have a perfect model of the universe, it would be an exact copy of the universe.

I asserted that free will as we know it does not affect the outcome of any event in the physical universe. The experience of free will has a physical cause in the brain, as does every mental sensation. You are not being as clear on the nature of free will, but I am interested in the mechanisms of such a thing.



I believe it is equally difficult to objectively evaluate our own potential to make free will decisions than to judge this ability in others.

Equally difficult? Only in the most philosophical sense, which, again, is irrelevant in living a day-to-day life, all internal philosophical dilemmas aside. Practically, it is much easier to judge your own subjective experience. Try to decide to click your mouse and do so. No doubt you are able to do this unless you have damaged your nervous system. It is much easier to see that you have mind capable of thinking and making decisions than it is to determine whether or not I do. I might be a fleshy robot without a real mind. I might not have the ability to cognate, yet I would act as if I did.

You can experience the sensation of making a free will decision. You cannot possibly know if anyone else does.


Again, your stepping outside the realms where potential free will applies.

My example of the falling ball was only to illustrate the inevitability of the laws of physics...


Here your stepping back into the realm of the potential of free will decisions.

... followed by a description of how free will decisions do not actually apply to the physical world and are only a product of the way our minds interpret the world. And a good thing they do, else we'd be pretty bored in our own heads. :P

Your brain is already set up to think in a certain way: every action you take and every thought you have is a result of that physical system. The wonder of the human brain is its adaptability: it can constantly reinvent itself and react differently to similar stimuli in such a complex manner as to invoke the illusion of free will in the conscious mind.

[shunyadragon]

I am unfamiliar with this concept. Please elaborate or provide links, I'm interested. This appears to be saying that when a system has many variables, it must also have many possible outcomes, which is not true in many situations. Certainly in a multi-variable system with several initial parameters, many different outcomes are possible. However, each outcome will be the same if the initial parameters are the same, and our universe has already been seeded with the "initial parameters" of the Big Bang, or whatever event preceded that (irrelevant, since no information can survive a big bang event.).

I believe 'chaos theory' of fractal relationships is very important to what we are discussing. You may read Chaos by James Gleick as a good primer. Chaos theory basically replaces the old concept of randomness in the macro world of our existence.

No, a system of many variables does not have too many outcomes, as witnessed by our own universe. The events of non-linear fractal relationship will only have possible outcomes within the range of these relationships, but that range will have a distinct recognizable pattern to them.


If you model an event with a high-level system (as the mind interprets it rather than the reality of particles bouncing around), you'll have a very inaccurate model by the standards of the real world. The laws of physics are the perfect simulation for the universe, after all, they run the universe! If you could have a perfect model of the universe, it would be an exact copy of the universe.

If we had multiple universes that began as Big Bangs they would not be exact copies, as with snow flacks, finger prints and clouds, all snow flakes, finger prints, clouds and universes would be snow flakes, finger prints and universes, but no two would ever be exactly a like.


I asserted that free will as we know it does not affect the outcome of any event in the physical universe. The experience of free will has a physical cause in the brain, as does every mental sensation. You are not being as clear on the nature of free will, but I am interested in the mechanisms of such a thing.

I believe our free will can 'potentially' have an effect on the outcome in the physical universe, but this influence is limited in effect to the scale of human existence, and would not effect the destiny of the universe.


Your brain is already set up to think in a certain way: every action you take and every thought you have is a result of that physical system. The wonder of the human brain is its adaptability: it can constantly reinvent itself and react differently to similar stimuli in such a complex manner as to invoke the illusion of free will in the conscious mind.

I believe you need to read Chaos by James Gleick

[thaum]

I believe 'chaos theory' of fractal relationships is very important to what we are discussing. You may read Chaos by James Gleick as a good primer. Chaos theory basically replaces the old concept of randomness in the macro world of our existence.



I am familiar with chaos theory. Chaos theory describes multi-variable systems the outcome of which at a certain initial state can be vastly different from the outcome of the same system with initial parameters differing by an infinitesimally small amount. A good example of this is Conway's Game of Life: if you have a complex pattern set up, changing the state of one cell will cause the pattern to deviant greatly after many generations. At first it will be very similar to the original pattern, but later on it will not resemble it in the least.




No, a system of many variables does not have too many outcomes, as witnessed by our own universe. The events of non-linear fractal relationship will only have possible outcomes within the range of these relationships, but that range will have a distinct recognizable pattern to them.



Most natural systems, when modeled mathematically, have an infinite number of possible outcomes, as they have an infinite number of possible inputs. As you have stated, many of these outcomes will be similar: they will follow a kind of pattern, yet they will be each distinct. In some systems, it is possible that two initial states will converge to the same outcome.

Our universe is one possible outcome of the physical system that governs the motion and interaction of particles. The initial conditions were the conditions at the start of our universe. If you replicate those conditions perfectly, you will get the same universe every time. This is what chaos theory states.

Chaos theory says that if the initial conditions are changed very slightly, such as one atom out of place, that the eventual result would be a very different universe. I do not deny that. However, our current universe had, obviously, a single beginning, and will have a single outcome.






If we had multiple universes that began as Big Bangs they would not be exact copies, as with snow flacks, finger prints and clouds, all snow flakes, finger prints, clouds and universes would be snow flakes, finger prints and universes, but no two would ever be exactly a like.




If each Big Bang was identical, then no, each universe would be the same, and every last snow flake would be the same.

If each Big Bang was almost identical, then yes, each universe would be very different.


Every snowflake is created with different initial conditions, resulting in the amazing variety of snowflakes. I love this part of nature.

If every snowflake was created in the exact same conditions, then every snowflake would be the same. Chaos theorists say that something so small as a single molecule or slight variance in temperature is enough to significantly affect the system that creates snowflakes. They say that it is impossible for us mere humans to control the initial conditions of such complex systems as to create identical snowflakes because we do not have the level of control over precision to do that.

If we create a computer simulation of snowflake creation, then we do have that control. Obviously such a simulation would be simplified, but let's imagine such a simulation that perfectly modeled the real world and the creation of snowflakes. We could seed that simulation with the same initial conditions and create the same snowflake over and over again.

Some theoretical physicists predict that new universes are created as a result of quantum variance. That is to say, every time something happens on the quantum level that could possibly happen in multiple ways due to quantum mechanics, it happens in all possible ways. Each way creates a new universe in which that thing happened in one of those ways.

This does not apply to the macroscopic world. If I decide to wear my red shirt instead of my blue shirt today, there is not created as a result of that decision a universe where I decided to wear the blue shirt instead of the red. Again, that theory only applies to quantum level events.




I believe our free will can 'potentially' have an effect on the outcome in the physical universe, but this influence is limited in effect to the scale of human existence, and would not effect the destiny of the universe.




You have still not attempted to explain the nature of free will, as I have.

Our minds are a product of the physical universe. In the broadest sense, we humans cannot do anything to stop the eventual end of the universe, so in that sense we cannot affect its "destiny".

Free will only exists when you consider the human experience, that is, the way we experience the world and interact with other people.

Looking at this purely objectively, it means nothing: humans are just complex systems of interacting particles. There is no purpose, they are simply a result of the physical processes of the universe.

Looking at it subjectively, it means everything: we base our entire lives on the assumption that we have the ability to make choices and that we must be held responsible for our choices. And that's fine. We live in the world of free will, and as I said in my first post in this thread, to act as if free will does not exist for us is stupid: clearly, it exists as far as we are concerned. As far as the universe is concerned, it does not.




I believe you need to read Chaos by James Gleick

I have not read this book yet, but I plan to. From what I have read about it so far, it seems to be more of a history of the development of chaos theory rather than an explanation of the theory itself. I first heard about chaos theory in 1993 when I saw Jurassic Park, and of course that presentation of chaos theory was completely inaccurate.

I tend to avoid popular science books, because they seem to always present new developments in science as something different then they truly are and imply that they can be applied to things that they cannot. This is especially true of quantum mechanics, I can't begin to express my displeasure regarding books and movies such as "What the Bleep Do We Know" that push pseudo-scientific thinking under the guise of advanced, not yet fully developed scientific concepts.

James Gleick is not a scientist but an English major, so I'm wary of any presentation of chaos theory that he might put forth. Obviously I cannot say anything about the book now, as I have not yet read it. I will get back to you when I have.



Anyway, my main point is this: The Big Bang of our universe was the seed of all past, present, and future dynamic systems. You can interpret one system such as weather or the growth of a fern as independent from the rest of the universe for the purposes of studying that particular system, but do keep in mind that it is in fact the result of a bigger system. The perfect model for any system is the model of our universe. The best model for our universe is the universe itself, since it can perfectly simulate what it does, since it's actually doing it!

The universe had one set of initial conditions from which everything that is proceeds. That cannot change, as it has already occurred. This means that free will does not exist, since it is part of the inevitable result of that system.

If I have a system where at every step, 1 is added to a variable which is added to another variable, I will get the following results based on the starting values of 1 and 3:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
3, 5, 8, 12, 17, 23, 31...

Whatever follows cannot be changed, no matter how many variables exist in the system. Our universe is a system so complex that it simulates thought. We exist as a simulation of thought created by the physical laws of the universe.

But who cares, we think we can think. :lol: That's all that really matters. I don't mean this sarcastically.

[themuzicman]

Free will is an illusion in the most objective sense. Our brains are physical systems bound to the physical laws of the universe, and they can only proceed in one direction. However, as far as we as thinking beings are concerned, we have the ability to make choices, and so it's useless to go into such existential spirals of self-doubt over whether or not free will exists.

Subjectively, you have the ability to make a choice. You can't be sure about anyone else: they might all be mindless zombies that only appear to be making choices. However, it's irrelevant: regardless of whether or not free will exists, you experience the ability to make a choice based on thought and reasoning, and there's no good reason to behave as if you don't.

It's interesting to consider the free will of others. There is no possible way to determine if other people have the same experience of free will as you do, or if they even experience free will or thought at all. But again, it doesn't matter. To you, it appears as if everyone else is able to think as you can. So why does it matter if they actually have a mind?

It's the difference between an action that occurs at the most basic level, that of the physical world, and an action that is more abstracted through layers of human thought and interaction. If a ball rolls off a table, gravity will pull it towards the earth and it will fall to the ground. This is inevitable (as long as the law of gravity holds. There is no good reason to assume that it will not.).

Let's assume a person is watching the ball fall. Turning to the mind, it is inevitable that light particles bouncing off the ball will strike the rods and cones of a person's eye, initiating the series of electrical triggers that creates the sensation of viewing a ball in the mind of that person observing the ball. Let us assume that this sets off a chain reaction in that person's brain that will lead their body to walk towards the ball, kneel down, pick it up, and place it back on the table. In the mind of the person, they see the ball, think, "Oh. I should put that back.", and then make the choice to take action and put the ball back from where it fell.

Of course, this isn't saying that looking at a ball fall from a table will cause you to pick it up. The point is that any choices you think you are making are simply the outcomes of the reactions of chemicals and electric pulses in a lower level system (your brain), which create the experience of conscious thought (your mind).
This, of course, is the atheist view, who has nothing more than physical laws to draw from.

If the Christian is correct, and there is a spiritual realm in which we have the power to be uncaused causers (in the sense that we make our own choices, apart from determination), then this argument doesn't get you very far.

Michael

[shunyadragon]

I am familiar with chaos theory. Chaos theory describes multi-variable systems the outcome of which at a certain initial state can be vastly different from the outcome of the same system with initial parameters differing by an infinitesimally small amount. A good example of this is Conway's Game of Life: if you have a complex pattern set up, changing the state of one cell will cause the pattern to deviant greatly after many generations. At first it will be very similar to the original pattern, but later on it will not resemble it in the least.

Based on your response, you are not familiar with Chaos.


Most natural systems, when modeled mathematically, have an infinite number of possible outcomes, as they have an infinite number of possible inputs. As you have stated, many of these outcomes will be similar: they will follow a kind of pattern, yet they will be each distinct. In some systems, it is possible that two initial states will converge to the same outcome.

Incorrect, natural systems do not have an infinite number of outcomes. The outcomes of natural systems only have a limited number of outcomes within the constraints of the laws of nature and the given initial circumstances. The apparent varibility nature of outcomes


Our universe is one possible outcome of the physical system that governs the motion and interaction of particles. The initial conditions were the conditions at the start of our universe. If you replicate those conditions perfectly, you will get the same universe every time. This is what chaos theory states.

Chaos theory says that if the initial conditions are changed very slightly, such as one atom out of place, that the eventual result would be a very different universe. I do not deny that. However, our current universe had, obviously, a single beginning, and will have a single outcome.

This is an incorrect view of chaos theory. It is difficult to go in to detail, but you need to read the book. If you understood non-linear fractal math better you would realize that the starting conditions can be exactly the same as in a non-linear equation in a computer, and the result will vary over time in a predicable chaotic pattern depending on the number of variables involved in the equation or the initial starting position for any given system. The book goes in this in detail.

A good example of this I saw in computer program was in a pool playing program, where the break on a pool table was programed with the exact same break with the exact placement of the cue ball, and same force and strike by the cue ball. The resulting arrangement of pool balls after the break were never the same..

If you had a linear relationship than the result will be the same every time from a given initial starting point. The beginning of a universe would have too many variables in the process to duplicate the same exact same universe every time.




If we create a computer simulation of snowflake creation, then we do have that control. Obviously such a simulation would be simplified, but let's imagine such a simulation that perfectly modeled the real world and the creation of snowflakes. We could seed that simulation with the same initial conditions and create the same snowflake over and over again.Actually this has been done and no the snowflakes are not the same, as in nature no two snowflakes are the same.



I tend to avoid popular science books, because they seem to always present new developments in science as something different then they truly are and imply that they can be applied to things that they cannot. This is especially true of quantum mechanics, I can't begin to express my displeasure regarding books and movies such as "What the Bleep Do We Know" that push pseudo-scientific thinking under the guise of advanced, not yet fully developed scientific concepts.

James Gleick is not a scientist but an English major, so I'm wary of any presentation of chaos theory that he might put forth. Obviously I cannot say anything about the book now, as I have not yet read it. I will get back to you when I have.Do not prejudge this book. Your current view of the nature of non-linear fractal math is incorrect, therefore this book is a good one. It is more than just another low brow popular science book. It does cover the history of the Chaos Theory, but it nonetheless describes the theory in great detail.

[thaum]

Based on your response, you are not familiar with Chaos.



Incorrect, natural systems do not have an infinite number of outcomes. The outcomes of natural systems only have a limited number of outcomes within the constraints of the laws of nature and the given initial circumstances. The apparent varibility nature of outcomes



I was clear in stating that mathematical models of said systems have an infinite number of outcomes, not the actual systems themselves.




This is an incorrect view of chaos theory. It is difficult to go in to detail, but you need to read the book. If you understood non-linear fractal math better you would realize that the starting conditions can be exactly the same as in a non-linear equation in a computer, and the result will vary over time in a predicable chaotic pattern depending on the number of variables involved in the equation or the initial starting position for any given system. The book goes in this in detail.

A good example of this I saw in computer program was in a pool playing program, where the break on a pool table was programed with the exact same break with the exact placement of the cue ball, and same force and strike by the cue ball. The resulting arrangement of pool balls after the break were never the same..




Such an outcome is simply impossible without some degree of randomness being introduced. If the placement of the cue ball and the power of the strike and so forth are exactly and precisely the same, then the result will be the same every time unless some degree of randomness is introduced or if the initial conditions were not actually the same.




If you had a linear relationship than the result will be the same every time from a given initial starting point. The beginning of a universe would have too many variables in the process to duplicate the same exact same universe every time.




No matter how many variables exist in a system, this is the outcome. You are not making sense.




Actually this has been done and no the snowflakes are not the same, as in nature no two snowflakes are the same.




If it was done, then it would be the same. I don't know what to say to you; you are simply denying basic facts of computer science. If you have an algorithm that does not include any random numbers, the output will be the same on every trial of a given input.




Do not prejudge this book. Your current view of the nature of non-linear fractal math is incorrect, therefore this book is a good one. It is more than just another low brow popular science book. It does cover the history of the Chaos Theory, but it nonetheless describes the theory in great detail.

I tried to be careful in my wording so as to make it clear that I am not pre-judging the book. I do not consider it low-brow.