Definition of free will

[Rainbow Dash]

I disliked it because I was determined to do it and had no control. Blame the big bang and go get your explanation from IT.

I disliked your comment and if you have a problem with that then blame my free will.

[Kevin Beal]

You seem to be describing determinism as defined by Wikipedia which states, "Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, exist conditions that could cause no other event", You are claiming that given enough conditions, only one possible future can result.

But the condition "I chose to lift my arm" is a condition that results in (I would argue) an event for which there were not sufficient conditions necessary to determine it, that is beyond my decision to do it.

 

When you say that determinism is only some action from necessary conditions, non deterministic events can be included under this definition. It's just like saying that causality is the same thing as determinism again. It begs the question that determinism is true in order for your argument to work.

[Rainbow Dash]

But the condition "I chose to lift my arm" is a condition that results in (I would argue) an event for which there were not sufficient conditions necessary to determine it, that is beyond my decision to do it.

 

When you say that determinism is only some action from necessary conditions, non deterministic events can be included under this definition. It's just like saying that causality is the same thing as determinism again. It begs the question that determinism is true in order for your argument to work.

When you say not sufficient conditions, do you mean not sufficient by a normal scenario, or by even the hypothetical time freezing scenario?

[Kevin Beal]

OK, fair enough. Can you give me a fairly succinct view of it?  Deterministic free will that is.

 

He had a title of Free Will is Causal and then talked about the child not necessarily turning out a certain way based on certain factors.  That seemed to be the only evidence being offered under that title which is just an argument of complexity because all information is just not known.  He compared it to the simplicity of the billiard ball.  I couldn't really detect any other evidence being put forward under the section of text under that title.

I also explained why it's not simply a matter of complexity. I showed that the standards we use to determine if it's a valid causal description in no way requires determinism. The requirement that it's deterministic can only be sustained if we already assume determinism is true, thus begging the question that determinism is true.

 

The proposition is "determinism is true and free will is illusory" that I'm looking at. In accepting this propositions, several logical problems come up, several presuppositions and a whole lot of question begging in the arguments that have been put forward.

 

The presuppositions are that causality is synonymous with determinism (which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false), that any effect's cause must be blind and dumb and necessarily determined (which results in a circular argument), that any physical phenomena can be fully accounted for in terms of particle physics and chemical phenomena (also not true as I think I've shown). And probably a lot more that I'm too lazy right now to pull out.

 

This idea that there are no facts to support free will beyond an intuition is false, first of all, but even if it were true, it's a misleading standard to appeal to here.

 

First, the fact that there is a performative contradiction is evidence, it doesn't constitute proof, but so what? The fact that determinism as a theory has some irreconcilable logical problems when it is applied is evidence again. My actual experience is evidence. It's not an intuition. You can disregard an intuition, you cannot shake this one off, not as long as you appeal to reason or assume any responsibility in any capacity.

 

If you argue for free will, you absolutely have to beg the question that it exists. There is no logical escape from this dilemma. But determinists aren't bound by this same problem. Determinists don't have to assume determinism in order to argue for it, and yet as I've argued, that's been happening left and right in the determinist arguments that I've responded to.

 

In order to argue for the existence of reality and the validity of the senses, you must also beg the question that reality is real and the senses valid. That's not just my "intuition", is it? The same principle goes for the fact that things are causal.

 

If it really is a matter of complexity that childhood trauma results in adult dysfunction, then explain to me the deterministic physics that fully account for this phenomena. Let's do away with all the soft sciences and replace them all with a physics of psychology, etc. The behaviorists attempted to do that already. Are you familiar with them and the inevitable failure of their new science of psychology?

 

The existence of human minds makes things harder because now, not all objectively true statements are ontological in nature. Accepting the existence of human consciousness presents a lot of problems for materialists and determinists. Problems they cannot reconcile. And the reason they cannot, and why progress in this area is held back is because of these mistaken presuppositions (I would argue).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I disliked your comment and if you have a problem with that then blame my free will.

I have no choice. 

 

Determinist fail.

[Rainbow Dash]

Keven,

 

It appears you agree with causal determinism (the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature)

What is your stance on logical determinism (the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false)?

 

If you agree with both of these types of determinism, then I would classify you as a compatibalist.

 

does this describe your viewpoints?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Determinists can't think. 

Determinists can't think. 

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html

[Kevin Beal]

It appears you agree with causal determinism (the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature)

No, not necessitated. I believe that I have more than covered in detail why I do not think every event is necessitated. I'm actually confused as to how we got here again. What did I say that suggested my approval of this position?

 

 

 

What is your stance on logical determinism (the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false)?

I believe that propositions are either true or false, yes.

 

I believe that the acceptance of both these points is actually the determinist position rather than the compatibilist one. Like how you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, you can be a determinist compatibilist or not a determinist and a compatibilist.

 

The way that I have defined determinism and free will, they are absolutely incompatible. I could have a mistaken definition or I'm confusing a paradox for a contradiction, but no, I do not consider the compatibilist position to be logically tenable.

 

That experience of free will that we have is either illusory, or it isn't. These two things are not compatible. If there's anything I'm saying, it's that. If I could get anything across, it would be that I intend to represent the side of the argument that says that our experience of our own free will is not illusory.

 

You claim to want to know the definitions of these terms and the free will position, but you don't seem to understand, at least how I'm using these terms, still. Is that right? It's been a few hundred posts now in this thread and it doesn't appear as if you've made any progress toward your goal.

 

I've offered a dozen or so definitions to related terms and a dozen or so arguments, admittedly in a manner which was rude and unproductive, and I apologize for that. What would you like me to do differently to help you understand the position? Because whatever we're doing now is not working.

 

I really do want to help people to understand the position and I feel a bit silly trying to beat people over the head with the truth. That was a dumb thing to try to do. Telling myself that "determinists just don't listen" was just an excuse I was telling myself to act badly. I don't know that. I was a determinist before too.

 

Help me out a little here.

[Rainbow Dash]

Ok, now I remember you saying events have a cause but it doesn't necessitate it like childhood trauma causes something but that alone doesn't explain it. In my mind, the frozen person example made me think otherwise. In the frozen person example: given enough information, you said we can know a person's future outcome. How can this be possible if every event is not necessitated by past conditions?

 

As for logical determinism, for example: if I say "you will reply to this post", for my statement to be either true or false, whether or not you will reply to this post must be already determined. An example of logical in-determinism would be if the future splits into two alternate realities, one where you reply to this post, and the other you don't. That would mean my statement can't be considered either true or false.

 

I will try brainstorming different ways we can proceed.

That experience of free will that we have is either illusory, or it isn't.

Stop saying the experience we have of free will, I don't believe I have this experience of free will that you speak of. I have mentioned this before, so I am not the only one who doesn't always listen.

[James Dean]

This is where determinism is these days? Stating a blindingly obvious fact like "causality exists" then tacking "ergo determinism" at the end and calling it an argument?I haven't found my way to reading the entirety of the thread yet, so I can't say much of import at this time (this being the first thing I read in the morning is like starting out the day by repeatedly bashing my head into a cat while singing "my country tis of thee")

 

Kevin, your posts have been illuminating, as always. 

[Rainbow Dash]

Keven, If it makes you feel better, I think it may be incompatibalism that I am having trouble with not free will. I get the concept that a choice is a thing in itself that can't be reduced into states of matter and energy, and this making of the choice (by reasoning for example) is an act of free will, and once this choice is made, that person will carry out that action. So I believe I have made some progress. You say that free will is not determinate, but you never claim it to be random, probabilistic, or having multiple resulting futures. I don't know how else to explain indeterminism. Try explaining your understanding of how indeterminism works and maybe we can make better progress.

When you speak about causality that is not deterministic, are you talking about partial causality, or probabilistic causality or something like that? Or are you talking about causality like in supply and demand theory where increasing supply causes a decrease in demand? Does an event in my past cause me to behave in a certain way fit into any of these types of causality? Or are you talking about intentional causality?

[Kevin Beal]

Keven, If it makes you feel better, I think it may be incompatibalism that I am having trouble with not free will. I get the concept that a choice is a thing in itself that can't be reduced into states of matter and energy, and this making of the choice (by reasoning for example) is an act of free will, and once this choice is made, that person will carry out that action. So I believe I have made some progress. You say that free will is not determinate, but you never claim it to be random, probabilistic, or having multiple resulting futures. I don't know how else to explain indeterminism. Try explaining your understanding of how indeterminism works and maybe we can make better progress.

When you speak about causality that is not deterministic, are you talking about partial causality, or probabilistic causality or something like that? Or are you talking about causality like in supply and demand theory where increasing supply causes a decrease in demand? Does an event in my past cause me to behave in a certain way fit into any of these types of causality? Or are you talking about intentional causality?

I think that the confusion is as you suggested, in the concept of causality.

 

The determinist in my head tells me that all events are push / pull events locked in a dance with both the past and the future and that any gaps in this chain must be a sign of an error in our description, rather than any actual gaps in that chain.

 

The metaphor I use in thinking about this problem of deterministic things in a universe which isn't entirely deterministic, is to think about event based programming. It isn't until an event like a mouse click occurs that some logic is run. That logic is 100% deterministic, but the event itself which triggered it is not necessarily.

 

When we draw up a physics model, we're always doing it in a particular context of X results in Y in C, and it's necessary to have C be something that we can fully account for. We don't want outside factors messing up the reliability of Y. When we create this physics "simulation" so to speak, we are describing something that will really happen once we set it up to fit the model X to Y in C. If it accurately describes reality, then we know we haven't totally fucked up our model.

 

To make this apply general to everything that exists, we have to assume a whole lot of things that I don't think should be taken for granted. I want to see the model and the experiment that proves the model.

 

This requirement that all causal events be deterministic has at least one exception that we all kind of have to accept for now, which is quantum indeterminacy (and other quantum events). So gaps do exist, at least on the quantum level. I somehow doubt that consciousness is a quantum state of the brain. Rather I think that our conscious capacity for free will is a self generated cause in the way that I experience it. I don't know how that can be, but I don't know either why it can't be. It cannot follow logically simply from the reality that we live in a causal universe. At least, that's what I've been arguing this whole time.

 

And sorry to be annoying, but I think that actually you do experience free will in the sense that I have defined it, and that's because you are reasoning through things and talking as if that reasoning means something, and is itself not an illusion (as it would have to be). The reasoning must be causal and your doing as an agent with free will in order for you to say that you've reasoned something through. Causal (as opposed to epiphenomenal) because you are saying that your reasoning resulted in your logical conclusions. And your own doing as a responsible agent with free will because you acknowledge ownership over your own arguments. If your consciousness were an illusion and not causal in any way, then you have no idea if your memory of the past ever happened, much less if you made a particular argument.

 

That's why I say that you experience free will. On this point, as I have defined my terms, I'm confident enough to speak on your behalf. Your actions imply it.

[Rainbow Dash]

The metaphor I use in thinking about this problem of deterministic things in a universe which isn't entirely deterministic, is to think about event based programming. It isn't until an event like a mouse click occurs that some logic is run. That logic is 100% deterministic, but the event itself which triggered it is not necessarily.

How is this different from a ghost in the machine triggering events?

[Kevin Beal]

How is this different from a ghost in the machine triggering events?

Because that implies it's something else. I'm me. I'm not a little man inside of my head.

[Rainbow Dash]

Because that implies it's something else. I'm me. I'm not a little man inside of my head.

And when you refer to yourself, are you not just consciousness with matter and energy?

[Kevin Beal]

And when you refer to yourself, are you not just consciousness with matter and energy?

Close enough, I suppose. I'm not entirely sure what constitutes the self to be honest. It's one of those things that seems to be a somewhat controversial and complicated issue in philosophy, and I don't have any solutions to it, really, beyond what people imply is themselves when they act.

 

If I'm anything, then I'm made of matter and energy, though. That seems uncontestable. I certainly don't mean to imply that consciousness is not a physical and biological phenomena. It's actually quite the opposite really, since I'm saying that it's real and not illusory. That first John Searle video I embedded goes a little into this if you recall.

[Rainbow Dash]

So it basically comes down to consciousness, matter, and energy non-deterministically causes the future?

 

I believe the one thing I still don't get how a non-deterministic cause can have no element of random to it.

[Kevin Beal]

I believe the one thing I still don't get how a non-deterministic cause can have no element of random to it.

You gave a definition of random that I didn't quite understand, so it could be the case, the way you are defining it, that it is random. It's not compatible with the sense in which I use the word.

 

Free will is self caused rather than causally random, is how I would phrase it.

[Rainbow Dash]

You gave a definition of random that I didn't quite understand, so it could be the case, the way you are defining it, that it is random. It's not compatible with the sense in which I use the word.

 

Free will is self caused rather than causally random, is how I would phrase it.

If there is not a 100% chance that a specific action will occur given a certain scenario, then I consider the outcome is random.

I think referring to our free will as self caused just sounds more egotistical, but that is just my opinion.

 

I believe I have a satisfactory, non-contradictory understanding of free will and incompatibilism now. Thank you so much for your time and dedication. Advice I would give you for explaining free will to others in the future would be to specifically use the terms deterministic causality and non-deterministic causality, so people don't mistake the two.

[Mike Fleming]

I'm not intending to engage in this thread much further because it's just frustrating, but I will say this.

 

I see a lot of sophistry in this thread, a lot of complex unnecessary terms and I think it's all designed to make people's head spin.  To make them give up on the question entirely as just being too abstract and too complicated.  If you can't wrap your head around what someone is saying or the terms they are using it's not your fault, it's because that person is not very good at communicating or is intentionally confusing.  It's quite common amongst the pseudo-intellectual set.  The need to feel intellectually superior.

 

So for those people who's head is spinning here it is boiled down.  It's actually quite simple.

 

Either everything is pre-determined or it isn't.  If everything is pre-determined, if each effect has a cause and the universe is just one interconnected chain of events then everything that happens is what was always going to happen.  That means all the choices that you made in the past were the choices you were always going to make and saying you could have made a different choice is meaningless, because it is equivalent to saying that the universe might have been different.  If it is pre-determined, you don't really have free will because what is going to happen has already been decided by previous events.  Every effect has a cause in lncluding our own actions because we are matter and energy and thus subject to the same laws. 

 

That is the question.  It's not any more complex than that.  Nor is the answer.

 

Does the answer have applicability to your daily lives and society in general?  Does it help you achieve clarity in your thoughts regarding your environment?  Is the question of free will worth pondering for the average person?  The answer to all three is yes, absolutely.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Either everything is pre-determined or it isn't. 

It isn't. 

[Kevin Beal]

Please point out the sophistry that you see so that it can be exposed and the truth come out. It doesn't do people any good to know that something is sophistry, they should be able to tell how it is sophistry so that they can avoid it in the future.

 

I confess that I was acting badly, that I was acting superior and being a jerk. But if I'm the (or one of the) sophists you mentioned, then I can honestly say that I was not at all trying to make it too abstract or complicated. I do believe it is more complicated than your characterization. But, I made an effort to define all of my terms and I rephrased the same points in several different ways so as to make them easier to digest. And I had people tell me that they understood what I was saying and got a clearer picture of the free will side of the argument. That seems, to me, incompatible with your claim that I (assuming you are referring to me) am making things too abstract and difficult to understand so as to keep people away from the truth of determinism.

 

I probably was wrong about a thing or two, in which case you are free to point it out and show the readers you are addressing how I'm mistaken, or ignorant or engaging in sophistry and we can all learn from the experience.

 

But consider this: you said that all free will proponents are resting their belief on an intuition and that there is no evidence for their claims. A sophism is a false argument intended to mislead. And what you said was misleading and false.

 

If you would like me to concede something, perhaps you can lead by example and show me how it's done.

[RestoringGuy]

Every effect has a cause in lncluding our own actions because we are matter and energy and thus subject to the same laws.

I agree with that totally.  Why do you seem to assume one cause must have only one possible effect? I think every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect, but they are not one-to-one in some time-reversible world where eggs can unbreak and gravity flows backwards if only we could reverse all the vectors.  The concern is how these causes and effects are mapped to one another.  In quantum mechanics, you can have a single causal state in a superposition that results in two different exclusive effects, let's say A or B.  The universe so far seems to allow this.

 

Sure some people will say that's not good enough.  If A and B are both allowed, that is still somehow not sufficient for free will.  It's just random noise and consciousness is magically something else?  Well my point of view is that there are two ways to misunderstand consciousness:  (1) complexity and chaos are at work, but in some deterministic way,  and (2) randomness is at work, but in some stupid and meaningless way. However, I think maybe you cannot randomly generate consciousness using independent events, but once those events are causally connected (probability of one thing will skew the probability of another, and create joint probability densities), it does not seem like that limitation exists.  If molecules are shaped just right so that consciousness happens, it does not mean the brain is pre-destined to think some particular thing.  But it can mean there's an assortment of possible thoughts that are accessible, and I will think some of them. A clone with an identical brain will have different thoughts than I will, but still limited to the assortment that is available.  In this regard, free will is not totally unrestricted.  You can only do what the brain is atomically capable of, just as rats probably cannot do calculus, but identical rats might run through a maze in different ways.  I'm not sure how this line of thinking would seem disturbing to anybody, it treats brains and atoms in essentially the same fashion, but also leaves room for free will where our thoughts simply cannot be predicted nor do they carry any status of absolute certainty before they happen.  Choice is limited, but still available.

[Bedouin]

Are you rainbow dash under a different account? Just kidding

 

I think I remember downvoting one because it was obvious that RD was being obtuse, ignoring the relevant part of a post I made that already addressed what RD said. I think he even quoted that part...

 

One example is the question "is free will random?" when I had said to RD in an earlier post that, at least the way I define it, has nothing whatever to do with randomness. I remember having that experience of being annoyed by the seeming obtuseness multiple times.

 

I'm inclined to believe that RD's an intelligent person, so that makes me think it's obtuseness.

 

Is that alright? Can I downvote for that reason?

 

Here's a thread about this topic generally. That's the most appropriate place to bring it up, I think. And you can always report abusive behavior to the mods if you see it.

Sorry about the late reply. Hehe how did you guess? Nah new user, long time lurker.

 

That sounds reasonable. Probably had I gone back and looked I might have understood your reasons after all.

Also, just thought I'd say thanks for putting the info out there and your answer, I haven't come across these arguments for free will before, without which I've not really felt there to be any other choice than to be a determinist 

[Mike Fleming]

I agree with that totally.  Why do you seem to assume one cause must have only one possible effect? I think every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect, but they are not one-to-one in some time-reversible world where eggs can unbreak and gravity flows backwards if only we could reverse all the vectors.  The concern is how these causes and effects are mapped to one another.  In quantum mechanics, you can have a single causal state in a superposition that results in two different exclusive effects, let's say A or B.  The universe so far seems to allow this.

 

Sure some people will say that's not good enough.  If A and B are both allowed, that is still somehow not sufficient for free will.  It's just random noise and consciousness is magically something else?  Well my point of view is that there are two ways to misunderstand consciousness:  (1) complexity and chaos are at work, but in some deterministic way,  and (2) randomness is at work, but in some stupid and meaningless way. However, I think maybe you cannot randomly generate consciousness using independent events, but once those events are causally connected (probability of one thing will skew the probability of another, and create joint probability densities), it does not seem like that limitation exists.  If molecules are shaped just right so that consciousness happens, it does not mean the brain is pre-destined to think some particular thing.  But it can mean there's an assortment of possible thoughts that are accessible, and I will think some of them. A clone with an identical brain will have different thoughts than I will, but still limited to the assortment that is available.  In this regard, free will is not totally unrestricted.  You can only do what the brain is atomically capable of, just as rats probably cannot do calculus, but identical rats might run through a maze in different ways.  I'm not sure how this line of thinking would seem disturbing to anybody, it treats brains and atoms in essentially the same fashion, but also leaves room for free will where our thoughts simply cannot be predicted nor do they carry any status of absolute certainty before they happen.  Choice is limited, but still available.

 

When I say every effect has a cause, it does not mean that they're are not interlocking cause and effects.  It all depends which layer of abstraction you are working on.  If you are working on the most basic level of the universe, whatever it happens to be, then cause and effect will be individual.  But any higher level of abstraction and things often don't have individual causes.

 

The point is whether an effect has one cause or many causes, it is still caused.  If it wasn't for those previous causes it wouldn't have happened.  And the same can be said for each of those previous causes that themselves may have had more than one cause.  A set of causes will create a certain effect.   That's how you can have the scientific method and repeatable results.  And why all the intersecting pieces of your computer provide the same effect time after time.  Multiple causes does not lead to a different result.

It isn't. 

 

Well then I guess science and the scientific method are wrong.

While I'm on this subject does anyone else not find it strange that one of the biggest philosophical questions of all time is not allowed to be discussed on a self-proclaimed philosophy site?

 

It's funny how atheism/religion is resolved, in my mind at least, but it can still be discussed yet free will/determinism is off limits.  Even more strange that posts on determinism aren't banned since they are against the forum rules.

 

And Stef said that he banned it because a few people wanted it banned?  I guess people don't like controversy.   If people don't want to discuss a topic they don't have to.  No-one is making people click on anything.  But, instead we go the nuclear option.  What happened to the idea of exploring controversial topics?  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

  Well then I guess science and the scientific method are wrong.

While I'm on this subject does anyone else not find it strange that one of the biggest philosophical questions of all time is not allowed to be discussed on a self-proclaimed philosophy site?

 

It's funny how atheism/religion is resolved, in my mind at least, but it can still be discussed yet free will/determinism is off limits.  Even more strange that posts on determinism aren't banned since they are against the forum rules.

 

And Stef said that he banned it because a few people wanted it banned?  I guess people don't like controversy.   If people don't want to discuss a topic they don't have to.  No-one is making people click on anything.  But, instead we go the nuclear option.  What happened to the idea of exploring controversial topics?  

Determinist prick. Prove your dumb sci-fi religion or stfu.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It's hilarious how determinist scum down-vote posts. They hold people responsible for what they do while asserting they can have no control over what they do because it's utterly pre-determined. Determinist fail.

[TheRobin]

It's hilarious how determinist scum down-vote posts. They hold people responsible for what they do while asserting they can have no control over what they do because it's utterly pre-determined. Determinist fail.

Well, to be fair, I'm not a determinist and I downvoted your latest post too, because it was just insulting and non-productive. Maybe you'd want to take a break from debating with people if you're at a point where you want to insult them.

[michaelfcp]

Determinist prick. Prove your dumb sci-fi religion or stfu.

   Calling someone a prick might not be the most optimal way to deal with this topic. 

 

   I don´t know if determinism is true or not, or if free will is true or not (meaning: I was free to behave differently than I did in the past ). But the evidence seems to favor determinism. I don´t like it.

   Stef is  courageous, engaging, smart and he is doing outstanding work, particularly in making the argument for non spanking and peaceful parenting. I have only good things to say about him.

The arguments that I´ve heard of him regarding free will, don´t make sense to me. Maybe I´m missing something, But comparing opinions to ideals could be a deterministic process, And I cannot see how this is not the case. Saying that this (comparing opinions to ideals) is the definition for free will misses the point.  Again maybe i´m wrong, I´m willing to explore the issue,

   If we claim to be empirical we have to process the evidence, and to my knowledge, I haven´t seen a empirical proof that free will is truth. and the studies that I saw in the area show that we are aware of decisions some time after they are a "done deal" in the unconscious mind. Some say this is proof that free will is an illusion some don´t. Claiming certainty in this area might be premature. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Well, to be fair, I'm not a determinist and I downvoted your latest post too, because it was just insulting and non-productive. Maybe you'd want to take a break from debating with people if you're at a point where you want to insult them.

Ah, the determinist white-knight. Obviously I would not think it's ONLY determinists but it's certain that determinists do it. If you find my comment insulting and non-productive then why aren't you criticizing Mike Flemming for being insulting or non-productive? If I state my opinion that everything is not pre-determined and he comes back with "Well then I guess science and the scientific method are wrong" without any explanation and then proceeds to make a bunch of insinuations of intellectual dishonesty, isn't THAT insulting? Really, I'd prefer just to be called a prick. It's LESS insulting and you know where you stand. 

What would you say is "productive" with determinists? MORE debate? More explanations? Just one more argument? How much has the determinism debate moved in the past ten years? 

These determinists hold that I have absolutely no possibility of controlling my actions and there was no possibility whatsoever of me not calling him a prick. If someone was having an epileptic fit through no fault of their own and Mike Flemming started laughing at them or holding them responsible I'd call him a prick. It would just be a description. Similarly I call him a prick here because he makes passive-aggressive remarks about the attitude of people on the board while simultaneously claiming they could not have done otherwise. Determinists are pricks. That is a true statement. Also their position is a religious one as they have no sound argument to support the belief. 

Determinists are pricks who need to prove their religious claims or STFU. 

   Calling someone a prick might not be the most optimal way to deal with this topic. 

Giving the attitude of determinists it IS the optimal way. What would be better? Another argument? Even YOU are sinking into the determinist argument from ignorance (I can't see how it can be a deterministic process, therefore it probably IS) and you're not even a determinist yet.  

[michaelfcp]

 

Giving the attitude of determinists it IS the optimal way. What would be better? Another argument? Even YOU are sinking into the determinist argument from ignorance (I can't see how it can be a deterministic process, therefore it probably IS) and you're not even a determinist yet.  

 

 

What would be better? 

 

Not calling people names, if you are frustrated with something, or someone, the best way to deal with that is just saying that someone or something is frustrating you, or simply not engage anymore. 

 

I´m sinking into the determinist argument? No, I´m just looking at the facts and arguments to the best of my ability and try to sort out the truth.

 

You seem to imply that free will is a fact (i´m sorry if my interpretation is wrong), but it isn´t. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What would be better? 

 

Not calling people names, if you are frustrated with something, or someone, the best way to deal with that is just saying that someone or something is frustrating you, or simply not engage anymore. 

 

I´m sinking into the determinist argument? No, I´m just looking at the facts and arguments to the best of my ability and try to sort out the truth.

 

You seem to imply that free will is a fact (i´m sorry if my interpretation is wrong), but it isn´t. 

Why is not calling people names better? Why? I gave an explanation of why I did it. WHY would saying "I'm frustrated" be better? Sorry, tried that a billion times. Determinists responded by repeating same fallacies and condescending in the most vomit-inducing manner. How am I supposed to NOT engage when determinism is the fastest growing religion and it involves almost everything? No, I want to engage and if using a few insults works then so be it. Determinists have no problem telling me that I have no control over what I say so your objections are ridiculous. 

I say you are sinking into the argument from ignorance determinists use and you come back with an "aw shucks, I'm just a simple fella tryin' to get to the truth".  Gimme a break. Who ISN'T going to claim they're just tryin to "sort out the truth". It's just vapid.

You say I'm implying free-will is a fact. Okay then tell what it IS I'm "implying" is a fact. Go ahead. You SHOULD know what it IS I'm implying is a fact, right? Let's hear it!

[RestoringGuy]

When I say every effect has a cause, it does not mean that they're are not interlocking cause and effects.  It all depends which layer of abstraction you are working on.  If you are working on the most basic level of the universe, whatever it happens to be, then cause and effect will be individual.  But any higher level of abstraction and things often don't have individual causes.

 

The point is whether an effect has one cause or many causes, it is still caused.  If it wasn't for those previous causes it wouldn't have happened.  And the same can be said for each of those previous causes that themselves may have had more than one cause.  A set of causes will create a certain effect.   That's how you can have the scientific method and repeatable results.  And why all the intersecting pieces of your computer provide the same effect time after time.  Multiple causes does not lead to a different result.  

I was meaning two effects, each being mutually exclusive, stemming from one-in-the-same cause.

.

[cynicist]

Hey, you know, that may be a great description of free will as we experience it - the continual input and output from person to environment could well be what we call free will. But even given that - the reciprocity as you called it - the causal chain is still linear. I mean, it can't be any other way. The arrow of time only goes in one direction.

 

But as you say, we can very well describe the complex interplay between what we call a person and its environment to be free will. That it is still operating in a linear causal chain (again, which is must do) precludes the existence of a free will outside of that chain.

 

Intelligence I would suppose is a different arrangement of neurons impacted by given environmental factors. Just like all these other qualia. None of these things is necessary 'spared' by determinists. What determinists assert, in short, is that we do not in fact have choices. This does not preclude the existence of complex systems.

 

I had to take a break from this thread to avoid a mental breakdown but I really wanted to address this. What about the linearity of the causal chain precludes free will? Again, I just don't understand where this line of thinking is coming from. The linear aspect is what makes free will possible!@#!

 

Time goes one way, yes, absolutely, but since it has a predictable consistency we know that and can plan for that, we are able to affect causality by interacting with it differently. A rock has past movement altering its future course in the present, but we can predict how events will unfold and guide our actions accordingly, in addition to being guided by past experiences. And unlike other animals we can do it in an abstract way, which is how we are aware of our own mortality. (and which gives us a much more advanced capacity for planning) Why is that hard to understand? 

 

And No no no no. Choice is a requirement for human intelligence. The ability to make choices implies the ability to anticipate causality. We make decisions based on expectations and plan in order to bring those expectations to fruition. If choices were ephemeral, how would planning work? Clearly part of intelligence has to include keeping track of choices relative to our plans. If our choices weren't recursive in this way, how would we ever succeed at anything beyond simple tasks? (I'm talking about the shallow form of planning that a chimpanzee requires for simple tool-making compared with the depth of planning required for building a motherfucking space shuttle)

 

I believe the difference between a calculator and a human is consciousness, not free will. Consciousness is what is required for the type of understanding you described.

 

Oh I love this. So free will is an illusion because you know, brain chemistry + causality and stuff, but no, consciousness isn't! How are things like consciousness and reason exempt from causality then? If they are just as determined as choice, then how they not also illusory? You can't pick and choose what phenomenon you like as exempt from this rule, let's have some consistency here...

 

So it basically comes down to consciousness, matter, and energy non-deterministically causes the future?

 

I believe the one thing I still don't get how a non-deterministic cause can have no element of random to it.

 

The universe is deterministic/causal (i.e. predictable) but we are aware of that and can use that to our advantage (due to time being linear). Human beings are not random. Think of it in terms of a purely random number generator vs a pseudo-random one that uses various seeds to improve the randomness of the results. The former does not exist, we are of the latter type, and the seeds we use to generate our pseudo-random decisions come from the past, our present state, and our imagined future. (even our attempts to make changes influence the future changes we attempt to make) What makes us special relative to other animals is just our ability to abstract and how that widens the pool of possibilities available to us.

 

The main problem that occurs in debates like this is when you assume that just because the universe is deterministic, that everything within it responds to causality in the exact same way. The very fact that life exists contradicts this idea, and yet determinists plow on in apparent ignorance of this crucial point.

 

 

 

Btw, I think I'm going to periodically return to this thread just for the humor of it.

[cynicist]

[John Searle Videos]

 

Great videos. I love how he explained conscious functions as a low level neurologically based processes being translated to some higher level form. I always viewed it that way as well but I thought of it in terms of programming. Look at machine code vs a high level computer language like python or javascript. The higher level instructions mean the exact same thing as the translated machine code, but we wouldn't call them the same thing, because one is human readable and the other isn't. In the same way I look at conscious processes as corresponding to lower level neurological activity in the brain, but in a form that is advantageous to us if that makes sense.