Free will and determinism

[childeye 2]

A free will decision should be considered as a second level desire. It's not that you simply want to do something - a first level desire, but you must will the decision to do it. Or not, as the case might be. The first may be considered an instinctive reaction. And the second a more free will decision.

Well, I notice you're using free will as an adverb when you say, "A free will decision" which is typically written as "freewill", rather than the noun which is depicted by "free will". This effectively turns the decision level into a "voluntary" decision which is denoting a certain type of decision that is more likely circumstantial, and therefore not necessarily willed by desire.

Unless you consider the desire to do it as being based on deterministic causal processes...

As are all deterministic causes.

Yes, I'm saying the desire to act or to not act is based on deterministic causal processes in the moral/immoral purview. That is to say, I don't believe the moral/immoral choice/decision ever qualifies as voluntary because as a prerequisite one must acknowledge that the choice of action/inaction will affect others either positively or negatively. It's the same as saying there's a reason some actions/inactions are right, and some actions/inactions are wrong based on knowing some actions/inactions cause comfort and some actions/inactions cause discomfort.

I don't believe we can volunteer to be cruel, and I don't believe we can volunteer to feel compassion.

 

[Bradskii]

Good advice. In contradiction, determinists assert no free will but have no evidence of seeing that happening.

The evidence is the deterministic world. The conclusion is therefore that there is no free will. To dispute the conclusion you have to deny the evidence.

We never choose that which we think is not good.

No. Sometimes we choose what we know is bad. By which I mean immoral. It's that we prefer it. So the thief knows it's wrong to steal. But does it anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, I notice you're using free will as an adverb when you say, "A free will decision" which is typically written as "freewill", rather than the noun which is depicted by "free will". This effectively turns the decision level into a "voluntary" decision which is denoting a certain type of decision that is more likely circumstantial, and therefore not necessarily willed by desire.

I mean that the desire might prompt an action. But there is a second level process where one effectively questions the desire and asks 'do I really want this?' The action is then determined by the will rather than just by the desire

Yes, I'm saying the desire to act or to not act is based on deterministic causal processes in the moral/immoral purview. That is to say, I don't believe the moral/immoral choice/decision ever qualifies as voluntary because as a prerequisite one must acknowledge that the choice of action/inaction will affect others either positively or negatively. It's the same as saying there's a reason some actions/inactions are right, and some actions/inactions are wrong based on knowing some actions/inactions cause comfort and some actions/inactions cause discomfort.

I agree. If the world is deterministic that doesn't prevent us from declaring an action as good or bad.

 

[childeye 2]

I mean that the desire might prompt an action. But there is a second level process where one effectively questions the desire and asks 'do I really want this?' The action is then determined by the will rather than just by the desire

Okay, I thought you meant the occasion of a "voluntary" decision. Now it sounds like you're describing the difference between being impulsive and practicing some forethought. I don't see what that would have to do with free will. I would think that it's past experience and the acquired wisdom that fosters forethought, and the outcome of weighing pros and cons is dependent upon reliable information. Are we still trying to identify a viable free will?

 

[o_mlly]

The evidence is the deterministic world. The conclusion is therefore that there is no free will. To dispute the conclusion you have to deny the evidence.

Looks like a category error.

An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force. Unless that object is a human being. The rock at my feet will remain so following the above law of nature. My child, not so much.

No. Sometimes we choose what we know is bad. By which I mean immoral. It's that we prefer it. So the thief knows it's wrong to steal. But does it anyway.

Nope. The thief still chooses the apparent good, eg., your wallet. In his calculus, having your money is good for him.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, I thought you meant the occasion of a "voluntary" decision. Now it sounds like you're describing the difference between being impulsive and practicing some forethought. I don't see what that would have to do with free will.

Some people might consider the second to be free will.

I would think that it's past experience and the acquired wisdom that fosters forethought, and the outcome of weighing pros and cons is dependent upon reliable information. Are we still trying to identify a viable free will?

It's the past experience and acquired wisdom that determines your decisions. Are you in control of what experiences you have and what wisdom you aquire? If it's a deterministic world, then no.

 

[Bradskii]

Looks like a category error.

An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force. Unless that object is a human being. The rock at my feet will remain so following the above law of nature. My child, not so much.

So we change, depending on the circumstances. If the circumstances are drastically different then the changes will likely be so as well. As I said earlier, you are not the same person you were a few years ago. Your circumstances have changed. You know more. Your experiences change you.

As you say, if nothing happens to the rock, it will not change. But your child is constantly changing. New experiences, greater wisdom, more maturity. How could she remain the same? The decisions she makes will reflect those changes. They'll determine her choices.

Nope. The thief still chooses the apparent good, eg., your wallet. In his calculus, having your money is good for him.

The point being that we may often choose an immoral act because of our desires. And you can't choose to desire something as a first order decision. You can make a second order one: Do I actually want to do this? And the decision will be caused by something.

 

[childeye 2]

Some people might consider the second to be free will.

If we're going to define a choice/decision as a free will, then the term free is redundant.

It's the past experience and acquired wisdom that determines your decisions. Are you in control of what experiences you have and what wisdom you aquire? If it's a deterministic world, then no.

The fact is that sometimes I was sitting when I could've been standing and other times I was standing when I could have been sitting. As long as I've been alive, I've always been doing something.

 

[Bradskii]

If we're going to define a choice/decision as a free will, then the term free is redundant.

The fact is that sometimes I was sitting when I could've been standing and other times I was standing when I could have been sitting. As long as I've been alive, I've always been doing something.

By choice.

 

[childeye 2]

By choice.

By being alive.

 

[Bradskii]

By being alive.

Well...yes, you need to be alive to make the choice. But being alive is not the reason why you made it. It's one of the conditions that allowed you to make it.

I'll assume that you might have been sitting down at some point today and that you stood up. What was the reason why you did that?

 

[childeye 2]

Well...yes, you need to be alive to make the choice. But being alive is not the reason why you made it. It's one of the conditions that allowed you to make it.

But being alive is the reason I find myself making choices. So long as choice/options are being presented, as a sentient being I must make a choice/decision. The point being that so long as I'm alive, every moment can be construed as making a choice since I must be doing something while I could have been doing something else.

I'll assume that you might have been sitting down at some point today and that you stood up. What was the reason why you did that?

It happened so many times I can't even remember them all, but I'm sure I got up to go to the bathroom, to get something to eat, to get the dog some water, etc.. But I suppose I could have chosen to pee my pants, let the dog go without water, and not eat anything.

 

[Bradskii]

It happened so many times I can't even remember them all, but I'm sure I got up to go to the bathroom, to get something to eat, to get the dog some water, etc.. But I suppose I could have chosen to pee my pants, let the dog go without water, and not eat anything.

So there was a reason for getting up. To go to the bathroom, to feed the dog etc. You've no control of your bladder of your dog's sense of hunger. They were each causes over which you had no control. But you might have preferred to finish a book rather than feed the dog. Wanting to finish it was a desire over which you had no control. You can't want to desire something. But maybe you needed to sit there and finish it because you had to give it back to someone. They want it back and you have no control over what they want.

You can follow the change of events back and there will be some point where it was obvious that you had no control over the event that allowed the process to continue. At all other points it won't be obvious at all. But that flow of circumstances will always lead you to the choice you make. Each event determines the next. Without fail. And if that is the case then there is no room for free will.

To have free will then either the universe is not deterministic, in which there are random events and that is not compatible with free will. Or the universe is deterministic and free will is compatible with it. In which case there is some part of the process which doesn't obey the same rules as the rest of the universe does. And I'd need to know where and how that happens. I need some evidence for that.

If the answer is 'We don't know where and how that happens' then fine. We have no evidence. And they say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But a magical dragon in your basement wouldn't obey the same rules as the rest of the universe. And if I've spent years looking for it and there's no evidence for it at all, just a feeling that you have that it's there, then eventually I'm obliged to say that it doesn't exist.

 

[o_mlly]

The decisions she makes will reflect those changes. They'll determine her choices.

The decisions she makes are her determined choices. That all human choices are determined does not support your argument for determinism. Your effort to expel human free will from that process is well, just ludicrous.

 

[Bradskii]

That all human choices are determined does not support your argument for determinism.

Something wrong there. Except for you to say 'Hey, we have free will so there can't be any.'

Take it one concept at a time. If the universe is not determined then show me something that happens without a cause (if you find something, that means it's random, so that discounts free will). If you do find it's determinate then you can tell me why you think free will is incompatible with it.

How do we make decisions with no causal antecedent events?

 

[o_mlly]

If the universe is not determined then show me something that happens without a cause ...

All things happen for reasons, ie., causes. Man's moral acts always have an end, a final purpose (teleological), end in view.

An animal “is lived” through the biological laws of nature. Humans, “life aware of itself”, know themselves to be in the world but not of the world; partly spiritual, partly animal; partly infinite, partly finite.

Your worldview, as you have explained it in other threads (like Sapolsky), cannot allow for free will. If there is free will then evolution cannot fully explain man and man could not freely love others for their own sake. If you could argue w/o stretching credulity by dismissing the obvious evidence then you would. But you must deny the evidence of free will in plain sight in order to maintain an atheist's worldview.

 

[Bradskii]

All things happen for reasons, ie., causes.

Agreed. So the world is deterministic.

Man's moral acts always have an end, a final purpose (teleological), end in view.

Unless they are random, all acts have a purpose. Moral or not. Mostly proximate.

An animal “is lived” through the biological laws of nature.

We are part of nature. We are bound by those biological laws. We are literally animals. More self aware than others, but still operating within those natural laws. Which must lead to the conclusion that free will is not compatible with the conclusion we just reached.

Humans, “life aware of itself”, know themselves to be in the world but not of the world; partly spiritual, partly animal; partly infinite, partly finite.

Now you've moved away from physical matters into spiritual ones. Now you're talking religious beliefs. Non overlapping magisteria as has been noted by some. You are now saying that we have free will despite the physical evidence. You are now talking about what you believe rather than something for which you have reasonable evidence. I say reasonable because it's no more than 'Look, we make decisions'.

Your worldview, as you have explained it in other threads (like Sapolsky), cannot allow for free will.

It can. And there are many people who are atheists who believe that free will actually is compatible with determinism. Dennett, for example. Steven Pinker is another. Both most definitely atheists. I think that argument is one you'd like to believe so you can reject incompatibilism because it's some kind of atheistic belief, but that is simply and demonstrably wrong.

If there is free will then evolution cannot fully explain man and man could not freely love others for their own sake.

The same point I just made stands with regard to evolution. And to a much greater extent. A great deal of people who think that a rejection of evolution is foolish believe that free will exists. The one doesn't exclude the other.

But you must deny the evidence of free will in plain sight in order to maintain an atheist's worldview.

Yet again, completely wrong, as I just explained. You can be an atheist and still believe in free will. I mentioned PInker earlier and here's 2 minutes of him confirming that he does believe in it: Steven Pinker on Free Will

Although I might say that the points he makes are easily rejected: he conflates free will with predictability, it doesn't relate at all to automatic reflex behaviour and gee, the brain is complex!

As to my own position, I rejected religion in my teens, became an atheist in my twenties and assumed that we had free will for decades. It's only the last ten years or so that I have started looking at it in more detail and only relevantly recently have I made my conclusion. So it's not required to maintain an 'atheist's world view'. No more than a rejection of the evolutionary process is needed to be a Christian (I'll just note that your arguments for free will and against evolution are both based on your beliefs).

 

[o_mlly]

Agreed. So the world is deterministic.

No. Read what was posted.

Unless they are random, all acts have a purpose. Moral or not. Mostly proximate.

No. Only man's moral acts have an end in view and that end may be proximate or remote. Conversely, all human acts with an end in view are moral acts.

We are part of nature. We are bound by those biological laws. We are literally animals. More self aware than others, but still operating within those natural laws. Which must lead to the conclusion that free will is not compatible with the conclusion we just reached.

Patently false. Show me the hungry animal that fasts from eating willingly in the presence of plenty. That animal would only be the human animal.

And there are many people who are atheists who believe that free will actually is compatible with determinism. Dennett, for example. Steven Pinker is another. Both most definitely atheists.

Then they must also reject evolution as a full explanation of mankind? If they do not then their worldviews are incoherent.

The same point I just made stands with regard to evolution. And to a much greater extent. A great deal of people who think that a rejection of evolution is foolish believe that free will exists. The one doesn't exclude the other.
Yet again, completely wrong, as I just explained. You can be an atheist and still believe in free will. I mentioned PInker earlier and here's 2 minutes of him confirming that he does believe in it: Steven Pinker on Free Will

? Pinker begins, "There’s no such thing as free will in the sense of a ghost in the machine; our behavior is the product of physical processes in the brain rather than some mysterious soul".

He says that even though human moral acts are reasonable they are unpredictable (invoking a Laplace like argument), and those acts are not miracles. Well, OK. We are rational beings, and it isn't a miracle when I freely decide to abstain from an animalistic impulse.

As to my own position, I rejected religion ...

Yes, yes, yes.

One is always entitled to their own unfounded but wished for opinions. We are most certainly free to do so. But if you want others to buy into your beliefs then evidence and convincing logic are necessary. I have not seen either of those in this thread.

 

[stevevw]

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences. There has been an effectively infinite chain of events which has resulted in me sitting here writing this sentence. They have all led to this point. From the major events - I was born at a specific time and place, to the minor ones - it's raining today, to the seemingly inconsequential - I broke a string on my guitar last night.

Yeah its a bummer when a string breaks. Though I guess it depends of the choice of strings sometimes. I have bought the cheap $7 ones online and they are crap lol.

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

I wonder how the quantum world fits into this equation which undermines the deterministic view of reality. I think for the most part we don't have free will and there are subconscious influences happening all the time.

But on the other hand some interpretations of QM makes the observer part of the equation. Their conscious choices and measures can influence reality collapsing any possibile reality into a single reality. Each person having their own version of reality.

I think we intuit that we have some control over reality, over the conditions we find ourselves in and its not some evolutionary illusion. Evolution fails to explain the agancy of creatures especially humans. How we can actually direct our own evolution through niche constructions and behaviour choices that are conducive and beneficial to survival.

Rather than being passive entities acted upon by forces acting on us we are active participants in our own lives and evolution.

Wheeler supported similar ideas with his Participatory Universe. He likened conscious beings as the universe looking back on itself. We are not just passive players as far as reality is concerned but are part of the equation in creating reality. We cannot remove ourselves from influencing things.

 

[childeye 2]

So there was a reason for getting up. To go to the bathroom, to feed the dog etc. You've no control of your bladder of your dog's sense of hunger. They were each causes over which you had no control.

I think the term free will you're applying is a semantical construct based on two interconnected views of choice, choice/option and choice/decision. The options would presumably precede the decision and it would be difficult to differentiate how much the options and circumstances dictate the decision. Perhaps this version of free will can be realized in subjective and objective approaches to reality, in the give/take-male/female aspects of a dichotomy, which means it would not be mutually exclusive with determinism, nor a true opposite but rather reflective, and is therefore relative to ignorance and knowledge. As you know, all subjective views would sub exist in an objective view, but the objective view could only partly be realized according to the limitations of the subjective view.

So, as an example of a semantical construct please note, I am in control and the proof is that I didn't pee my pants, and I was responsible for caring for the dog because I got the dog some water. Hence my actions/inactions will affect reality and I have become the cause and the antecedent event that will affect others whether realized or not.

But you might have preferred to finish a book rather than feed the dog. Wanting to finish it was a desire over which you had no control. You can't want to desire something. But maybe you needed to sit there and finish it because you had to give it back to someone. They want it back and you have no control over what they want.

As far as I know, I can only be in one place at a time. Suppose I neglected other causes, which could have bypassed other antecedent events that could have affected choices, in lieu of getting the dog water and going to the bathroom or getting something to eat, etc...

Does being bored count as desiring to want something and does taking Viagra count as wanting to desire something? (Just a thought).

You can follow the change of events back and there will be some point where it was obvious that you had no control over the event that allowed the process to continue. At all other points it won't be obvious at all. But that flow of circumstances will always lead you to the choice you make. Each event determines the next. Without fail. And if that is the case then there is no room for free will.

Like I said earlier, simply being born and being made alive and sentient, is an antecedent. But there are both deductive and inductive reasoning. While it would be futile to argue that my choices/options are not caused by antecedent events, it would be just as futile to argue against my being a moderator in the course of events and an antecedent in a future chain of events. It's logical that for every action there is a reaction, so it's logical that a free will in a semantical construct would be relative to knowledge/ignorance of the objective view.