Josh -Lel- Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 It's probably because you have a notion of free will that is logically impossible. I'm willing to hear new theories, but my idea of free will is this: actions and choices that are made independently from cause and effect. Kind of like an apple appearing out of nothingness without a cause. And I'm talking about the decisions we make with our brains ourselves, not the acting out of that decision. Are you telling me that free will could possibly be like a spherical "structure" wherein effects are the causes of themselves? It's an interesting idea actually, if that's what you're talking about. Doesn't quite give a definitive answer but I guess it leads to more possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I would love to see a determinist explain what the free will position actually is to the satisfaction of a free will proponent. Because if we're talking about two different things, then debate is meaningless, right? I am virtually certain it will be a version of ghost in the machine. I think this notion comes mostly out of religion. In the past, people would project their sense of self or spirit onto the environment. Objects in the external world were given agency or said to have spirits. Now that people are coming to atheism they no longer have the magic explanation for free will so they do a one-eighty and start projecting properties of objects in external reality onto the self. The mind hates a vacuum. I'm willing to hear new theories, but my idea of free will is actions and choices that are made independently from cause and effect. Kind of like an apple appearing out of nothingness without a cause. And I'm talking about the decisions we make our brains ourselves, not the acting out of that decision. Are you telling me that free will could possibly be like a spherical "structure" wherein effects are the causes of themselves? It's an interesting idea actually, if that's what you're talking about. Doesn't quite give a definitive answer but it leads to more possibilities. Yes many people have that notion of outside cause and effect. It's the ghost in the machine thing. But when pushed they often do not know what cause and effect really is. It was Bertrand Russel who argued that the idea of causality should removed from philosophical discourse. "To me it seems that philosophy ought not to assume such legislative functions, and that the reason why physics has ceased to look for causes is that, in fact, there are no such things. The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm." That's from "On the notion of cause" I would also recommend Carl Hoffer's "Causality and determinism: Tension or outright conflict". You're idea of a spherical structure is pretty interesting. For me free will is like you able to cause yourself; although that might sound a bit crack-pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is usually correct. If free will is so complicated that you couldn't accurately explain it to us by now, then free will appears to be an overly complicated idea. Since non-free will explains the universe well and is simpler, I think I will stick with non-free will until hear convincing reasons why I shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 @Rainbow Dash It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Determinism leads to so many assumptions it makes my head spin. With determinism I have to assume my volition is an illusion, that everything I do is utterly determined and could not be any other way, that morality is nonsense, that all my conscious thinking and efforts to reach truth are the simple playing out of unconscious material forces, that any virtue or vice is involuntary and that truth (ones beliefs and conclusions conforming to reason and evidence) is non-existent. I could probably come up with a lot more but i think that makes the point. Free-will on the other hand is not a solution. It's is a label I put on an empirically verifiable ability to choose that does not appear to exist in any non-intelligent configuration of matter and energy. Could free will be an illusion? Sure. Could it be something unknown? Sure. But until that question is answered I am going to to proceed with the logically consistent position. To proceed under the assumption of determinism is to make a positive claim that has not been shown to be true. That's religion. Free will is a place-holder for I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 Most of those are conclusions, not assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Most of those are conclusions, not assumptions. Those are the assumptions I would have to make in order to arrive at the position that determinism was a solution. I guess in another sense they could also be said to be conclusions but what does that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 "Free will is a place-holder for I don't know." (sorry quoting was buggy) Are you seriously telling me that you have been trying to explain something to me that you don't even know? Those are the assumptions I would have to make in order to arrive at the position that determinism was a solution. I guess in another sense they could also be said to be conclusions but what does that matter? Occam's razor has to do with the fewest assumptions, not the fewest conclusions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Are you seriously telling me that you have been trying to explain something to me that you don't even know? No one actually knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 No one actually knows. Then can I accurately replace "free will" with "the unknown"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Occam's razor has to do with the fewest assumptions, not the fewest conclusions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor When I consider determinism as a possible solution I have to make those assumptions in order for it to be true. When I consider free will as a solution I only have to assume that people can choose to some degree and that we don't know how. Free will allows me to retain logical consistency. Determinism does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 When I consider determinism as a possible solution I have to make those assumptions in order for it to be true. When I consider free will as a solution I only have to assume that people can choose to some degree and that we don't know how. Free will allows me to retain logical consistency. Determinism does not. I still don't understand what you mean by "choose" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Then can I accurately replace "free will" with "the unknown"? That would be replacing a noun with an adjective and create confusion. No. I still don't understand what you mean by "choose" I still don't understand what that question means. To me it's like saying "I still don't understand what you mean by Me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 Why is choice only applied to creatures with consciousness? This seems inconstant to me. Nobody claims gravity doesn't apply to creatures with consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Why is choice only applied to creatures with consciousness? This seems inconstant to me. Nobody claims gravity doesn't apply to creatures with consciousness. It's unique to the conscious mind. How could something without consciousness choose between preferred states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 It's unique to the conscious mind. How could something without consciousness choose between preferred states? So is choice when an action leads to preferred state? Am I getting closer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 So is choice when an action leads to preferred state? Am I getting closer? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 It's unique to the conscious mind. How could something without consciousness choose between preferred states? Can choice occur without preferred state? Is it possible to choose an non-preferred state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Can choice occur without preferred state? Is it possible to choose an non-preferred state? I wouldn't think so. Any choice you make would be choosing a preferred state, at least in that instant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 So is choice when a conscious creature has multiple possible future actions and he uses his or her consciousness to make his or her future action the action that leads to what he or she sees as preferable behavior? (Edit: preferable state, not behavior) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 For consciousness to not be reducible to matter and energy, there has to be something additional that affects it. No. Irreducible means it cannot be deconstructed any further. As humans, we are capable of manipulating matter and energy. What we cannot do is create life even though life requires matter and energy. We cannot create consciousness. We don't know how it comes to be. This irreducibility is how we know that If my consciousness is dependent on matter or energy, then if my consciousness causes my choices, doesn't that mean that matter and energy makes my choices? No, the matter and energy itself could not be what is making your choices. There is empirical evidence (sensory confirmation) and logical consistency to the existence of the matter that makes up our bodies and living organisms. There isn't any empirical evidence for free will (besides "feeling" it in the abstract sense) or logical consistency (defying the universe's causal nature) to the idea that we make our own choices. By this are you saying that there is empirical evidence that life exists? If so, what is your definition of life? Under the determinist lexicon, it would just be another classification of matter. I think we may be arguing over semantics. If I am wearing a glove on my hand and I use my gloved hand to lift a cup, is my hand lifting the cup or is the glove lifting the cup? How I see it, matter and energy are the hand, consciousness is the glove, and our actions are lifting the cup. Does this metaphor help explain my viewpoint? In order for this analogy to hold, you would have to provide consistent examples of cups being lifted by matter and energy that didn't also have consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share Posted March 9, 2014 What we cannot do is create life We can create life; its called giving birth. "If my consciousness is dependent on matter or energy, then if my consciousness causes my choices, doesn't that mean that matter and energy makes my choices?" No, the matter and energy itself could not be what is making your choices. No because my assumptions were false, or because my conclusion is false assuming my assumptions? Is it self contradictory for matter and energy to make my choices, or do you just not believe it is possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I'd say: yes it is. Choice (and free will) requires knowledge. For instance, if the only cure you have is leeches, there's no real choice in how to go on helping people that are sick. Once you have more knowledge (and more tools) available you'll have more choice in how to respond to a certain illness.I'd also assume a baby doesn't have much if any choice (pr free will)at all. (In the same way I don't think mentally handicapped people have much if any choice at all). (But I don't have a baby and I don't know much about the development of babies and infants either, so I might be completely wrong here) Yes, a newborn's brain doesn't develop that capacity for a while. Toddlers begin to shows signs of it. That's why peaceful parenting is so important. The child is not just pushed along by external forces beyond her control but begins to exercise their free-will early on. oh wow, thanks for your responses, i had no idea that babies having no free will was a generally supported position in the free will debate!this position then brings a question to the forefront... because if a baby only gains free will through the external forces of experience and knowledge then their free will must then be limited to that experience and knowledge. eg. a person who is born into a highly racist family and community can only have free will inside these 'walls' of racist experiences and knowledge. so therefore, what "responsibility" could this person be held accountable for, when their choices (say, physically and verbally abusing a certain race) are predicated by the external forces of particular limited experiences and knowledge.so the question to ask is: how responsible can a person be for their actions if their "free will" is wholly predicated upon their limited experience and knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 How about: P1: all observed stuff in the universe partakes in the principle of cause and effectP2: humans are stuff in the universeC: humans partake in cause and effect ----------------- P1: humans partake in cause and effectP2: free will definitionally exists outside of cause and effectC: humans cannot have free will No, the matter and energy itself could not be what is making your choices. Begging the question. This assumes there are in fact choices to be made. The determinist position suggests that there is not; only one route exists, all others are essentially illusory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Begging the question. This assumes there are in fact choices to be made. The determinist position suggests that there is not; only one route exists, all others are essentially illusory. You're quoting me out of context. The person I was talking to had said: If my consciousness is dependent on matter or energy, then if my consciousness causes my choices, doesn't that mean that matter and energy makes my choices? "If my consciousness," is the beginning of a contingency. I cannot be begging that which is provided as a given. In a philosophical examination, you can assume something to be true in order to test if the theory holds. Allow me to provide an example: "Let us suppose that ghosts exist. They either impress upon our senses or they do not. If they do, then we can measure them. If not, then it would be the same as if they did not exist." Here, I am not saying that ghosts exist. I'm pointing out that either we could measure them or their existence would be meaningless. Therefore, the claim of a belief in ghosts has no value. I believe what Rainbow was doing there was supposing the free will claim and suggesting that determinism provides an explanation for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Oh I see, well that serves me right for not reading the entire thread. edit: by that I mean I read the first page and two posts up. Yeah, Internets 101. Anyway, carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh -Lel- Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 By this are you saying that there is empirical evidence that life exists? If so, what is your definition of life? Under the determinist lexicon, it would just be another classification of matter. Well, we are definitely made of matter. I'm not sure how that changes in the free will perspective, since consciousness is still defined as an effect of matter (at least by scientific philosophers). I have a more general question regarding free will, if anyone would be interested in answering: What evidence is there that suggests free will exists? Is it based right off some fact or theory that consciousness implies but I am not aware of*, or is it just a huge historical assumption that's been built into our culture and our brains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 10, 2014 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 You're quoting me out of context. The person I was talking to had said: "If my consciousness," is the beginning of a contingency. I cannot be begging that which is provided as a given. In a philosophical examination, you can assume something to be true in order to test if the theory holds. Allow me to provide an example: "Let us suppose that ghosts exist. They either impress upon our senses or they do not. If they do, then we can measure them. If not, then it would be the same as if they did not exist." Here, I am not saying that ghosts exist. I'm pointing out that either we could measure them or their existence would be meaningless. Therefore, the claim of a belief in ghosts has no value. I believe what Rainbow was doing there was supposing the free will claim and suggesting that determinism provides an explanation for it. If we are unable to know the exact location of a quantum particle, does that mean the exact location of a quantum particle is meaningless? If a tree falls and no one is there to measure the sound it makes, is its sound meaningless? Determinism explains this with the idea that perfect information is unobtainable, thus we can't predict the future with perfect accuracy. This applies to all objects, and does not make special exceptions for humans. Does free will explain how we can't accurately predict the behavior of quantum particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 If a tree falls and no one is there to measure the sound it makes, is its sound meaningless? In the context that if nobody was around to receive the waves through the air, it making a sound is no different than it not making a sound. This doesn't even compare to what I said because if you were to say that you think that things make noise when they collide, we would test for this and discover it to be so. Therefore, nobody needs to waste time contemplating IF something makes a sound when nothing is there to receive it, because we know it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh -Lel- Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Ah craps guys, I just looked at the forum guidelines, and determinism/free will is a bannable topic. We're all VERY screwed if we don't do something quick and figure out how to hide/delete our posts in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray H. Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Ah craps guys, I just looked at the forum guidelines, and determinism/free will is a bannable topic. We're all VERY screwed if we don't do something quick and figure out how to hide/delete our posts in this thread. Nah, you had no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Ah craps guys, I just looked at the forum guidelines, and determinism/free will is a bannable topic. We're all VERY screwed if we don't do something quick and figure out how to hide/delete our posts in this thread. The rules seem vague on whether mentioning determinism is ban worthy or if debating determinism is ban worthy. My intentions are to understand how free will differs from determinism, not to debate free will vs determinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh -Lel- Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Nah, you had no choice. Thanks. That makes me feel better... got a message informing me that the mods don't ban people for talking about the free will/determinism topic, since they're luckily on a predetermined path of not caring about it. We're off the hook, gentlemen... The rules seem vague on whether mentioning determinism is ban worthy or if debating determinism is ban worthy. My intentions are to understand how free will differs from determinism, not to debate free will vs determinism. Yeah, this is a different topic anyway. And from what I'm told, it's more discouraged than it is unacceptable, so it's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainbow Dash Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Although debating determinism is ban worthy, I see nothing against arguing for an absence of free will, so you can get around it if you are careful with your wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fleming Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I strongly want to learn towards believing free will is true, but my conflict is that I can't find or understand any explanation of how free will would be logically possible. And on the other hand, a universally deterministic universe seems logically consistent and possible, but is a very emptying and depression thought for me. This was my initial thought too. But think of it this way. The universe didn't suddenly become deterministic the moment you realised it was deterministic. It has been your entire life and you didn't feel empty and depressed before you realised it, so there's no reason to think it afterward. The universe hasn't changed. When you think about it and realise the deterministic nature of the universe, you quickly realise that the concept of free will has no meaning at all. Not in this universe, nor would it in any conceivable universe. A universe with free will would be random and chaotic and things wouldn't make sense. The reason we can make sense of violent people for example is because of deterministic theories. . I myself, am much happier to live in this deterministic world, where we have a chance to solve the problem of human violence, than in a world where people had free will and you wouldn't be able to solve the problem of violence because people have free will and are not bound by previous decisions and experiences. We will almost certainly never have enough information to accurately predict, for example, what you are going to buy for lunch in a week's time, but we can solve problems to do with people's general behaviour. Determinism is really a wonderful concept when you come to grips with it. It also removes the last bit of "specialness" that humans hang on to, but doesn't detract from life at all. How could it? It has been that way all along. It's like losing God. He was never there in the first place. And the reality is, it helps you gain a good grasp on your own life and your experiences and motivations that brought you to where you are. The other benefit, is that you see through superstition much more easily because there is no magic, no free will. And so, you can just understand things as the result of physical processes and toss out nonsense which doesn't make sense in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fleming Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 By this are you saying that there is empirical evidence that life exists? If so, what is your definition of life? Under the determinist lexicon, it would just be another classification of matter. "Life" is just energy and matter interacting in a certain way, to be more precise. We humans have thought we are special and that our world is special, the centre of the universe, from the beginning. Our world is not special and neither are we. "Life" is just an abstract term to describe self-replicating machines composed of what we term "organic matter". It feels special, but it really isn't. It probably won't be long before self-replication occurs in more non-carbon based matter. When you realise all these terms like "life" and "organism" and "organic" are just labels, they lose their specialness when you look at the actual mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts