Free will and determinism

[partinobodycular]

To become other-oriented requires an inner impulse to reject our instinctive behaviors.

This certainly seems circular. If I may... I'll just change two words.

"To become other-oriented requires an instinctive impulse to reject our instinctive impulses.

 

[durangodawood]

.....
Without an impulse to reject it, we cannot be persuaded that our instinct to be selfish is disordered. To become other-oriented requires an inner impulse to reject our instinctive behaviors. Christians call that impulse God's grace. All of us have that grace whether we are believers or not. We freely choose to accept the grace or reject it.

On what basis do we freely choose?

The only basis we have to work with is the dispositions we've inherited at the moment, which may result from instinct, social and familial conditioning, education, reasoning we have elected to perform, and/or Gods grace. When this new moment presents, we dont get to chose anew those dispositions. They are already set in an irrevocable past.

Basically we can only react from inclinations we already have in a given moment, even if they result in us pursuing change in our lives. The only alternative I can see to this is: we are the origin of a brand new first-cause in the world. We start link one of a new causal chain. That seems God like. But maybe we do it? Somehow.

 

[o_mlly]

This certainly seems circular. If I may... I'll just change two words.

"To become other-oriented requires an instinctive impulse to reject our instinctive impulses.

The only instinctive impulse we have by nature is that inherited selfish gene.

What do we inherit and what do we acquire that give us out affections and attitudes? We do not, and I think, cannot reject our instinct to be selfish but we can choose not to be governed by it. The ability to deviate from out instinctive behavior is not inherited but acquired. If that ability is acquired then it must come from outside our nature. We call that grace.

 

[Bradskii]

Can we change a determinate, subconscious process into a conscious, free will process simply by being aware of, and consciously compensating for that process?

The argument is not that there's no free will because all our decisions happen on a sub conscious level. A lot of them do, but a conscious decision doesn't equate to free will. We may well know why we decide on something. At an obvious level, we hand our wallet over to prevent being shot. That's obviously determined. But you may say that that's not a choice because you were compelled.

Therein lies the problem. When you don't know that you've been compelled, then you think it's free will. When you are not aware of your decision being determined by what has happened a few seconds ago, a few hours ago, years ago, decades ago, millions of years ago, then it feels exactly like free will.

Quick example. I'm doing this 5:2 diet because I needed to lose a few kilos (it's worked for me before and it's working well now). But yesterday was my (very) limited calorie day. And I haven't had breakfast yet so my blood sugar is quite low. And I know from past experience that makes me Mr. Grumpy. And I am. So what I am doing right now is affected by that. I had to edit a post I just made because it came across as being frustrated by the question that was asked of me. And I just had to prevent myself giving a snippy answer to my wife when she asked me a simple question.

And here's part of an article that discusses the problem from a police viewpoint: https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/interview-considerations-blood-sugar-dysregulation/

'Blood sugar dysregulation not only has been shown to negatively impact one’s mood, behavior, and energy levels but also to negatively impact memory, concentration, and focus. The response to highs and lows in blood sugar levels by suspects, witnesses, and victims likely has significant implications for criminal justice interviews of suspects, witnesses, and victims.'

It goes without saying that low blood sugar will also affect the police themselves, and parole officers and judges. If you have to appear in court on any charge then try to make sure it's an early afternoon session. You don't want people making decisions about your punishment on an empty stomach.

Here's another example where someone is getting a retrial because of that problem: Diabetic wins chance for new assault trial

'During his trial, Garcia didn’t dispute that he attacked his wife but said he wasn’t legally responsible because of hypoglycemia. Doctors testified that symptoms of the condition can include a loss of motor skills and an altered mental state that can “prevent rational thinking, planning, deliberation and even appreciation of what (one is) doing.”

And here's a medical paper addressing it: Forensic aspects of hypoglycemia: Diabetic Hypoglycemia

'Within a few years of the introduction of insulin for treatment of diabetes, hypoglycemia was recognized as a cause of behavioral changes that amounted, in some cases, to criminality. Neuroglycopenic subjects have been charged with a range of offences both minor and serious. Manifestations of neuroglycopenia include confusion, irritability, and irrational anger, whether preceded by autonomic symptoms or not. It is these features that may bring patients with hypoglycemia into conflict with the law.'

 

[Bradskii]

What do we inherit and what do we acquire that give us out affections and attitudes?

We're not a blank slate when we're born. But what we become is a combination of nature and nurture. That's a given. If you have two sisters and one has a different mother then half their genes will be different. That will affect them to a significant degree. Have one mother drug and alcohol free and the other a regular drug user and borderline alcoholic and their brain development in the womb will be different. Give one a good diet as she grows and the other a bad one and it will affect their mental health in different ways. Bring one up in Gazza and one in Sydney and you'll end up with people with different views and different outlooks. Give one a good education and the other not and one is going to be able to make better decisions about her future because she'll have more options.

All those conditions are what they inherited. They had no choice over any of them.

 

[durangodawood]

....What do we inherit and what do we acquire that give us out affections and attitudes?....

I would add.... in a given moment we are the inheritors of every inclination we have, be they genetic, environmental, consciously pursued, or even by Gods grace.

What I'm looking for in "free will" is the capacity to act out of anything other than our inherited self - because we cannot change that. It was formed in the irrevocable past, right up to "just now". And if we cannot change those inclinations upon which we now act, then how are we "free"?

 

[partinobodycular]

And I haven't had breakfast yet so my blood sugar is quite low.

If there's one thing that I know a lot about it's low blood sugar. I had a brother and sister who were both Type-1 diabetics, and I cared for both of them in the years before their passing. Each of them responded differently when their blood sugar was low. My brother would be able to function fairly normally with a blood sugar of 30, but drop below 20 and he could get quite ornery. Then again my sister would become completely uncooperative if her blood sugar dropped below 50, and at 20 she simply wouldn't be conscious anymore. It's something that I just had to learn to deal with, and it's helped me to be patient when dealing with other irrational people. Just take a deep breath and stay calm. Put two stubborn people together and it's a recipe for disaster.

Then again I'm the only person that I know of that has actually fasted for forty days. I just wanted to see if I could do it, and trust me, I didn't have any extra body fat to begin with. Got down to 102 pounds. For years I fasted one day per week. I even went three months eating just one meal per week. I'm the type of person that just loves a challenge.

The argument is not that there's no free will because all our decisions happen on a sub conscious level. A lot of them do, but a conscious decision doesn't equate to free will.

Here's where you and I have a slight difference of opinion. I'm not convinced that my memories equate to 'me'. Memories can be very fleeting things, but even without them my awareness of 'Me' still persists. My memories serve to give context to me, and they are what I think of when I think of me... but they're not 'me'. "Me" is that thing which contemplates what it means to be me.

To me... "Me" is that thing which contemplates its own existence, and is aware that it's aware. The memories of me, and you, and everything else are just things that give context to me... but they're not me. So to my way of thinking, there may come a point when that contemplative part of me supersedes all of those 'external' influences and simply acts according to its will.

But here's where you win out, because I don't know where that will comes from. Perhaps it does come from what my mother did during pregnancy, or whether my father abused me... I simply don't know. Which leads me to wonder... does it even matter? Something formed 'me'... that contemplative part of me that has a will. And now that it exists... it's me... complete with a will which is free to choose, regardless of where it came from.

So you may be right, I may be the product of a million different things, but those million different things constitute me, and in spite of all of those subconscious influences I have the capacity to override them... and where "I" came from be damned, because that seems like free will to me.

 

[Bradskii]

Then again I'm the only person that I know of that has actually fasted for forty days. I just wanted to see if I could do it, and trust me, I didn't have any extra body fat to begin with. Got down to 102 pounds. For years I fasted one day per week. I even went three months eating just one meal per week. I'm the type of person that just loves a challenge.

Yikes! I had 22 to lose. 15 down, 7 to go.

Here's where you and I have a slight difference of opinion. I'm not convinced that my memories equate to 'me'. Memories can be very fleeting things, but even without them my awareness of 'Me' still persists. My memories serve to give context to me, and they are what I think of when I think of me... but they're not 'me'. "Me" is that thing which contemplates what it means to be me.

I might clarify that. If you lose all you memories then there will still be a person 'in there' wondering where they went. But you won't be 'you' in the sense of the person you were. You won't know where you live, whether you have a family, whether you are a good guy or not.

To me... "Me" is that thing which contemplates its own existence, and is aware that it's aware. The memories of me, and you, and everything else are just things that give context to me... but they're not me. So to my way of thinking, there may come a point when that contemplative part of me supersedes all of those 'external' influences and simply acts according to its will.

This is simply dualism. That there's another you apart from the person formed by your genetics, your upbringing, your education (even your blood sugar level) that is separate from everything. But isn't that 'you' governed by your beliefs? Your culture? The physical make up of your frontal cortex and amygdala? Is it not affected by your low blood sugar?

If what you say is so then why not simply tell your brother to stop being ornery? Just choose not to be. Just tell him to get that part of him that supersedes all his external influences to start synthesising glucose. Well, obviously he can't. It's a physiological problem. He can't control it. And it determines his decision making capabilities.

So you may be right, I may be the product of a million different things, but those million different things constitute me, and in spite of all of those subconscious influences I have the capacity to override them...

And all of those influences, all that went into making you as a person...you can operate independently of them? I won't leave that as an open question. I'll answer it myself. No, you can't. It's because you are the product of a million and more different things that you can't. If you say that they all go to constitute what is 'you' then you can't separate yourself from 'you' just to make a decision.

If you can, then who is it making the decision?

...because that seems like free will to me.

It seems like it to me as well.

 

[o_mlly]

All those conditions are what they inherited. They had no choice over any of them.

And ... ? It seems your definition of inherited conditions equates to all of those things that happen to us. We seldom if ever have a choice as to what may happen to us. I agree.

However, we always have a choice as to what comes from us. While we are affected by externalities and, by some, even affected physically, our choices are not dictated by either.

Why are you overweight? A prior loss of self-control? Why do you now address your condition as unhealthy and impose upon yourself a regimen of self-control to correct? Self-control is "Mind over Matter". Your free will allows you to no longer permit your body's appetites to dictate your behavior.

As a materialist, like Sapolsky, you seek a material explanation that explains all human behavior. You will likely find what you are looking for in every case of behavior in which the actor lacks self-control. But you come up short in explanations for all other human acts in which the actor's behavior deviates from his nature and nurture, in acts that exhibit the power of Mind over Matter.

Can you design an experiment to demonstrate the truth of your hypothesis? Probably not; human behavior is too complex.

 

[o_mlly]

I would add.... in a given moment we are the inheritors of every inclination we have, be they genetic, environmental, consciously pursued, or even by Gods grace.

What I'm looking for in "free will" is the capacity to act out of anything other than our inherited self - because we cannot change that. It was formed in the irrevocable past, right up to "just now". And if we cannot change those inclinations upon which we now act, then how are we "free"?

All goodness comes from God. In the moment of choice involving a moral act, God provides the actual grace to choose the good. Conscience -- reason, illumined by Omniscience, informs my free will. We are free to accept or reject His grace. To reject grace is to sin.

 

[durangodawood]

All goodness comes from God. In the moment of choice involving a moral act, God provides the actual grace to choose the good. Conscience -- reason, illumined by Omniscience, informs my free will. We are free to accept or reject His grace. To reject grace is to sin.

At that moment when you decide whether to accept or reject that grace, you are dependant on all the factors I mentioned, which accumulate in an irrevocable past, for the impetus to make that decision. There is no other basis for decision making aside from the nature of the person you have become, and thats already set at that moment.

So where's the actual freedom in that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At that moment when you decide whether to accept or reject that grace, you are dependant on all the factors I mentioned, which accumulate in an irrevocable past, for the impetus to make that decision. There is no other basis for decision making aside from the nature of the person you have become, and thats already set at that moment.

So where's the actual freedom in that?

I'd aver for the idea that one form of freedom is realizing that there may be treks of discovery, or of rational thought, that have yet to be engaged and explored. Upon that realization, one can then make an authentic choice to engage those other treks that have been avoided, neglected, or simply unknown. Pascal would aver for this approach. So would Rolfe King.

Personally, as an existentialist, I'm very suspicious of Absolute Ideas, especially indefinite ones, being passed off by anyone as absolutely irresistible forces in our lives. I also think a huge problem in the tension between free-will and determinism is that both of these ideas suffer from exaggeration and hyper-inflation of imputed meaning, a semantic inflation which both of them clearly have.

 

[Bradskii]

And ... ? It seems your definition of inherited conditions equates to all of those things that happen to us. We seldom if ever have a choice as to what may happen to us. I agree.

However, we always have a choice as to what comes from us. While we are affected by externalities and, by some, even affected physically, our choices are not dictated by either.

So there's two of you. One that is a composite of all the conditions that served to form your personality. And the other one that can ignore all the ticks and traits and impulses and desires, needs, wants and preferences. One that sits above all these all too human characteristics and manages to make decisions in some sort of of personality free zone?

And what do you end up with? Do you end up deciding what you personally prefer to do? What you want to do? Of course. And were these decisions random? Of course not. They were based on you what you wanted.

But did you skip breakfast? Blood sugar levels, as discussed earlier, will affect your decisions. You have no control over that. You wouldn't even realise it's affecting you. Was your mother depressed for some reaon when she was carrying you? Maybe she didn't tell you. But it would have affected the growth of your amygdala. And you'd have no idea if it has been affected and no control over the results or how it would affect you and the decisions you make.

'Prenatal maternal depression is associated with structural changes in the amygdala, which in turn, is predictive of an increase in behavioral problems.' Larger Amygdala Volume Mediates the Association Between Prenatal Maternal Stress and Higher Levels of Externalizing Behaviors: Sex Specific Effects in Project Ice Storm - PubMed

Was she stressed at the some point when you pregnant?

'Neurobiology studies indicate that prenatal maternal stress can significantly affect the structure and function of the prefrontal cortex due to the rapid brain development during pregnancy and due to the high density of glucocorticoid receptors in the prefrontal cortex.' Maternal perinatal depression and child neurocognitive development: A relationship still to be clarified.

Yet...

'Human studies also suggest that maternal sensitivity and higher socioeconomic status may attenuate the effects of prenatal stress on established neurocognitive and neuroendocrine mediators of risk for psychopathology...' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322322018534

So whether she was or wasn't will have had a direct impact on your ability to think clearly and make decisions.

You think you are making decisions free from any influence at all. But the more you examine the circumstances of your life and how you have been brought up you'll discover some of the monstrous number of factors which were entirely beyond your control and unknown to you determining what you do.

 

[durangodawood]

I'd aver for the idea that one form of freedom is realizing that there may be treks of discovery, or of rational thought, that have yet to be engaged and explored. Upon that realization, one can then make an authentic choice to engage those other treks that have been avoided, neglected, or simply unknown. Pascal would aver for this approach. So would Rolfe King.

Thats similar to where Im at. But the determinist would say that the decision to pursue avenues of rational thought and your capacities to do it are also entirely dependant on the nature of the person you are at that moment. And there is no independant meta-you who can jump outside you and change that.

Personally, as an existentialist, I'm very suspicious of Absolute Ideas, especially indefinite ones, being passed off by anyone as absolutely irresistible forces in our lives, but I think a huge problem in the tension between free-will and determinism is that both of these ideas suffer from the same exaggeration and hyper-inflation of imputed meaning, which neither of them clearly have.

I'm with you here too. But this is an intuition I hold rather than an argument. And I'm looking for a solid argument. The closest I have is: we simply dont know enough about human consciousness to be making such strong statements at this point - which is not an argument either way but more of a call to stop arguing for now.

 

[Bradskii]

I'd aver for the idea that one form of freedom is realizing that there may be treks of discovery, or of rational thought, that have yet to be engaged and explored. Upon that realization, one can then make an authentic choice to engage those other treks that have been avoided, neglected, or simply unknown.

So you didn't consider these particular paths of investigation before. But now you do. So you've now added them to the list of factors that will determine your decision. That monstrously large list of factors that was doing that in the first place has simply got slightly larger.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So there's two of you. One that is a composite of all the conditions that served to form your personality. And the other one that can ignore all the ticks and traits and impulses and desires, needs, wants and preferences. One that sits above all these all too human characteristics and manages to make decisions in some sort of of personality free zone?

And what do you end up with? Do you end up deciding what you personally prefer to do? What you want to do? Of course. And were these decisions random? Of course not. They were based on you what you wanted.

But did you skip breakfast? Blood sugar levels, as discussed earlier, will affect your decisions. You have no control over that. You wouldn't even realise it's affecting you. Was your mother depressed for some reaon when she was carrying you? Maybe she didn't tell you. But it would have affected the growth of your amygdala. And you'd have no idea if it has been affected and no control over the results or how it would affect you and the decisions you make.

'Prenatal maternal depression is associated with structural changes in the amygdala, which in turn, is predictive of an increase in behavioral problems.' Larger Amygdala Volume Mediates the Association Between Prenatal Maternal Stress and Higher Levels of Externalizing Behaviors: Sex Specific Effects in Project Ice Storm - PubMed

Was she stressed at the some point when you pregnant?

'Neurobiology studies indicate that prenatal maternal stress can significantly affect the structure and function of the prefrontal cortex due to the rapid brain development during pregnancy and due to the high density of glucocorticoid receptors in the prefrontal cortex.' Maternal perinatal depression and child neurocognitive development: A relationship still to be clarified.

Yet...

'Human studies also suggest that maternal sensitivity and higher socioeconomic status may attenuate the effects of prenatal stress on established neurocognitive and neuroendocrine mediators of risk for psychopathology...' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322322018534

So whether she was or wasn't will have had a direct impact on your ability to think clearly and make decisions.

You think you are making decisions free from any influence at all. But the more you examine the circumstances of your life and how you have been brought up you'll discover some of the monstrous number of factors which were entirely beyond your control and unknown to you determining what you do.

Y'know, Bradskii, I don't think we have to subscribe to absolutist language in order to promote, even robustly, the inherent idea that there needs to be, that there SHOULD BE ethically, a lot more empathy put forward by various people for the sake of those who, like some of us, struggle so much psychologically in this world.

While I generally like the direction that Sapolsky is pushing for where empathy and social reform in treatment of other people is concerned, especially since I've already been reading Bessel Van Der Kolk for the past year, I don't think we have to semantically gerrymander the meaning of "determine" --- especially when it's an amorphous term to begin with----in order to push for this reform. Doing so might have a rubber-band effect in the attempt to denote the whole of neuro-science in the way that Sapolsky is doing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you didn't consider these particular paths of investigation before. But now you do. So you've now added them to the list of factors that will determine your decision. That monstrously large list of factors that was doing that in the first place has simply got slightly larger.

This sounds like conflation to me, Bradskii. Not every individual factor is the same in quality, influence, potency, or weight as each of the many other factors. Some factors may indeed be inescapable, but just because some are doesn't mean that ALL factors are or that we thus have to apportion our semantic use of the term "determine" on a universally qualified level. If we do, that becomes a conceptual net that I think suffers from unjustified conceptual inflation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Y'know, Bradskii, I don't think we have to subscribe to absolutist language in order to promote, even robustly, the inherent idea that there needs to be, that there SHOULD BE ethically, a lot more empathy put forward by various people of the sake of those who, like some of us, struggle so much psychologically in this world.

While I generally like the direction that Sapolsky is pushing for where empathy and social reform in treatment of other people is concerned, especially since I've already been reading Bessel Van Der Kolk for the past year, I don't think we have to semantically gerrymander the meaning of "determine" --- especially when it's an amorphous term to begin with----in order to do push for this reform. Doing so might have a rubber-band effect in the attempt to denote the whole of neuro-science in the way that Sapolsky is doing.

... and again, to be fair, I also think the term "free-will" suffers from inflation, and people all too easily and blithely speak of it as if they actually 'know' what it is they are referring to. And I've noticed this semantic misuse ever since I was introduced to the free-will vs. determinism debate back in 1990 (in that Intro to Philosophy course I took). More specifically, I've never really believed in free-will as it is so described by so many.

 

[durangodawood]

.....More specifically, I've never really believed in free-will as it is so described by so many.

What flavor of free will are you referring to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What flavor of free will are you referring to?

I can't remember if I've ever mentioned it here on CF, but at the moment, and without any dogmatic attachment to the idea, I subscribe to what could be called the Bounded Will. The general idea being that even though we are not free to fully act in whatever way we want to at all times, we still make micro-deliberations within small pockets of our daily existence, and those deliberations, however small they may be, accumulate into decisions we make for our own daily action, and those deliberations are not necessarily undermined or always influenced by larger, potent forces, whether inherent within us or exterior to us, cannot simply erase or undo. In fact, sometimes, we might actually work against those forces, very mindfully.

Of course, as always, I could be wrong. But this is the general idea I came to after I read and discussed the unit over determinism that was assigned to us so many years ago in 'that Intro to Philosophy class.' It has also been informed by what I learned in a Brain, Mind and Behavior class (a.k.a. Intro to Neuro-science) class I had a few years before that.