Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Let's not confuse influence with coercion.

We shouldn't. They are two separate concepts when it comes to free will.

But I thought this would all take another turn toward brain processes, social programing and genetics. But even there I think we have the option to come off automatic pilot and live a more conscious life.

I want to stress that I'm not basing my position on conscious v subconscious actions. We need to look at the reason we make conscious decisions, what has put us in the the position of making a specific choice. And what control we have over those.

And we have deeply imbedded routines, practices and habits. But we also have the power, though it may take tremendous strength, to change those habits. This is why I think it is so important to instill virtue and values into children as early as possible.

Change is entirely possible in a deterministic world. So no problem with pointing our kids in the right direction.

 

[durangodawood]

.....Change is entirely possible in a deterministic world. So no problem with pointing our kids in the right direction.

If the path thats set includes you pointing your kids in the right direction, then thats what will happen. If not, nothing you can do about it.

 

[Bradskii]

Good try to bury the lead of the article but nope. The article concludes:

"By exerting free will, a person expands his or her options and freedom."​

So the guy believes he has free will. Most people do. I often do. But that's not an argument for it to exist.

Another good try but no can do. Extrapolation, as any good statistician knows, can with some confidence extend an existing trend line into the future but can never disclose a novelty that does not exist in the actual data used. Evidence of mitigation cannot be extrapolated to include elimination.

Then expand rather than extrapolate. If there are some good reasons for not entertaining culpability then why stop at one position and not another. Why aren't all conditions out of our control considered?

Yours.

? Then kindly give us your rational argument that free will does not exist.

There's no room for it within the deterministic process whereby we make decisions. There's nothing to point to where you can say 'This is where free will lives, this is how it operates. Here is where we find it.' There's nothing there. That's the argument. That there is no evidence for it.

 

[Bradskii]

The odd thing is that people do seem to behave just as if there was a ghost in the machine.

I think that we all do. I envisage a machine - my brain and all the components. And I experience the ghost - which is me. It seems like I'm the guy operating the machine. I'm the 'me' making all these free will decisions somehow outside of the process itself. I'm somehow directing it. It feels exactly like that. But the ghost and the machine are one and the same thing. I'm not controlling the process. I'm part of the process itself.

 

[durangodawood]

.....There's no room for it within the deterministic process whereby we make decisions. There's nothing to point to where you can say 'This is where free will lives, this is how it operates. Here is where we find it.' There's nothing there. That's the argument. That there is no evidence for it.

I dont believe we've been, or are yet, capable of giving a proper look for the locus of free will. To soon to tell it doesnt exist.

To soon to tell we do have it too.

 

[Bradskii]

Don't forget, You and I are that process, and/or 'contemplative subroutine'.

Funny that we both realise that yet reach different conclusions.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree neurons are caused to act. I'm just saying in certain cases the cause may be influenced by an emergent free will process thats untethered to physical causation.

I don't want to preface every post with 'As far as we are currently aware...' And although I can accept a position that starts with 'It may be the case...' (as regards this subject I was there for a long time). But I can't grant it any weight in the argument.

 

[Bradskii]

"Your brain predicts (in large part) by reassembling your past experiences that are similar to the present moment. That means every new experience you cultivate for yourself – every new thing you read, every new person you talk to, every new thing you learn – is an opportunity to change what your brain will predict in the future, and which actions you may take.

In other words, 'every new thing you read, every new person you talk to, every new thing you learn' will determine your future actions.

This may be a form of free will...

I don't think it's anything approaching free will. It's the exact opposite.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't want to preface every post with 'As far as we are currently aware...' And although I can accept a position that starts with 'It may be the case...' (as regards this subject I was there for a long time). But I can't grant it any weight in the argument.

All I'm doing is refuting the strong-negative position (NO free will). I'm not asserting the positive. My sense is that our understanding of consciousness is in pretty early days. Lots of contending notions both scientifically and philosophically, and potentially large domains that are simply unknown. Coming down hard for (or against) determinism seems really unwarranted in 2024.

 

[Bradskii]

If the path thats set includes you pointing your kids in the right direction, then thats what will happen. If not, nothing you can do about it.

If I'm the type of person who considers the well being of my children, then yes - I will generally try to point them in the right direction. But I didn't decide to be that type of person. I am that type of person. Based mostly on my biology and my upbringing. I had no control over either.

But there's feedback that will change every situation. If I'm the type of person who considers his career more important than his family then there may be an experience that will change that attitude. Something outside of my control but which becomes part of the conditions that determine my future decisions.

 

[Bradskii]

All I'm doing is refuting the strong-negative position (NO free will). I'm not asserting the positive. My sense is that our understanding of consciousness is in pretty early days. Lots of contending notions both scientifically and philosophically, and potentially large domains that are simply unknown. Coming down hard for (or against) determinism seems really unwarranted in 2024.

I appreciate that. I was in that position for many years. And there's always the possibility of future knowledge that might change things. But...'as far as we are currently aware'...I can't sit on the fence any longer. It's akin to my position on God. I have never said that He doesn't exist. I'm just so convinced that He doesn't that it makes no sense to be agnostic in that regard. Same with free will.

I may be wrong on both. But I'm convinced that I'm not.

 

[Bradskii]

I dont believe we've been, or are yet, capable of giving a proper look for the locus of free will. To soon to tell it doesnt exist.

To soon to tell we do have it too.

Yeah, the absence of evidence etc. I'm happy with that. But if someone keeps telling you that there's a dragon in his basement and continually fails to prove it exists then eventually you reach a point where you have to say 'mate, honestly...there's nothing there'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sorry, but the above just appears to me to be word salad. Why don't you start by concisely stating your position on free will and give a principled argument in support.

That was not the point of my response, is why. However, you have handily succeeded in sliding the attention away from where it had been.

But would you like to argue with me about my position on free will? We can do that, and probably (at first) keep closer to the intended subject of the thread. I believe in "will"; but, "free"? —not so much. Why? Because of the principle of causation, (i.e. the law of causation and the prevalence of causation. I have never seen anything that was not caused. Need more?

Those are the premises of the OP. He responded to the post where I challenged the testability of his premises but he did not give a reply to my challenge. I'm patient.

Then you should have said that is the OP's premise —not that is the determinist's premise. Maybe even, that is the premise of one of the determinists.

The laws of causation do not determine either the inclusion or exclusion of free will in the moral agent. At issue is what are the causes, ie., the agent himself, or the only the aggregate of prior events that may have or have not happened to him.

I happen to agree with the words of your first sentence here in this last paragraph. But probably not with your meaning of them. A moral agent is only free in that he does indeed choose. He is still bound by causation. He is not free to be uninfluenced by the aggregate of causes upon him, nor can he operate independent of causation. In fact, there is no difference. One is just another way of saying the other, and both are bogus concepts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Going back to people like Aristotle (it's compatible) and the Stoics (oh no it isn't) and working your way through and you'll get a mixture of views. You swing from one position to the other depending on who you are reading (here's an interesting anthology of various positions if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com.au/Free-Will-Derk-Pereboom/dp/1603841296).

And religion was almost always part of the answer. Often the starting point. If the writer believed in God then free will was a given and what followed often seemed to be an attempt to justify the original belief. But I wanted some expertise as to the process, not just opinions. So neurology was important. As was some insight into consciousness itself.

So we then have people like Sam Harris (it's incompatible) and the now late Dan Denett (oh no it isn't). And I disagreed with Harris a lot less than I disagreed with Dennett. So I'm then finding it more and more difficult to put forward an argument for free will. Then...along comes Robert Sapolski. I'd read and listened to him for a few years (his freebie Stanford lectures on Youtube on Human Behavioural Biology are outstanding). And he'd been skirting around free will questions for sometime. Then last year he bit the bullet and published Determined (https://www.amazon.com.au/Determined-Science-Life-Without-Free/dp/0525560971).

It's over 500 pages and I read it in 2 sessions. When I put it down I realised I'd made my mind up. So it wasn't a single insight. It's more the gradual weight of arguments that keep nudging you in one direction. Sapolski made me realise that I can't be agnostic anymore.

I'll look into your suggestions for reading. I know that I've come across Sapolski over the last few months as I listened to a few soundbites from several neuroscientists (Patrick McNamara being one of them), but I have yet to really listen to or read Sapolski. Maybe I'll take him up since I've been wanting a good challenge from the leading edge lately to keep my philosophical acumen toned and taught. However, I'm tempted to start with a shorter version of his general theoretical/scientific viewpoint on determinism, if I can find one.

Thanks for sharing your sources, Bradskii. That's useful and helpful.

 

[Bradskii]

However, I'm tempted to start with a shorter version of his general theoretical/scientific viewpoint on determinism, if I can find one.

Here's a relatively recent discussion/debate he had with Dennett on YouTube. It's an hour, but at least you get to hear both sides of the compatabilist argument.

.

Or somewhat shorter, a transcript of a podcast where he summarises his position. Do we really have free will? with Robert Sapolsky (Ep. 126). That also has a half dozen or so links on the first page to relevant articles discussing the matter.

 

[zippy2006]

But I can't grant it any weight in the argument.

I'm not at all convinced that you can represent a standard (incompatibilist) philosophical free-will view, or even understand it. Can you?

It sounds like you've read determinists and compatibilists and this led you to determinism. Yes, reading determinists and compatibilists will tend to do that.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not at all convinced that you can represent a standard (incompatibilist) philosophical free-will view...

On the not unreasonable assumption that incompatibilism refers to free will being incompatible with determinism (and determinism is accepted), then there is no incompatibilist free will position. Other than 'it cannot therefore exist.' I thought that was self explanatory.

It sounds like you've read determinists and compatibilists and this led you to determinism.

That makes no sense. I considered determinism entirely separate from any thoughts about free will. I've been a determinist since...for ever. Long before I started thinking about free will.

Yes, reading determinists and compatibilists will tend to do that.

Reading determinists and compatibilists will, if you accept their arguments, tend to reinforce an already inbuilt sense of free will. I haven't found one that's acceptable. Maybe you have one?

 

[o_mlly]

That was not the point of my response, is why. However, you have handily succeeded in sliding the attention away from where it had been.

But would you like to argue with me about my position on free will? We can do that, and probably (at first) keep closer to the intended subject of the thread. I believe in "will"; but, "free"? —not so much. Why? Because of the principle of causation, (i.e. the law of causation and the prevalence of causation. I have never seen anything that was not caused. Need more?

Then you should have said that is the OP's premise —not that is the determinist's premise. Maybe even, that is the premise of one of the determinists.

I happen to agree with the words of your first sentence here in this last paragraph. But probably not with your meaning of them. A moral agent is only free in that he does indeed choose. He is still bound by causation. He is not free to be uninfluenced by the aggregate of causes upon him, nor can he operate independent of causation. In fact, there is no difference. One is just another way of saying the other, and both are bogus concepts.

If you say so, Mark.

 

[o_mlly]

So the guy believes he has free will. Most people do. I often do. But that's not an argument for it to exist.

Then expand rather than extrapolate. If there are some good reasons for not entertaining culpability then why stop at one position and not another. Why aren't all conditions out of our control considered?

There's no room for it within the deterministic process whereby we make decisions. There's nothing to point to where you can say 'This is where free will lives, this is how it operates. Here is where we find it.' There's nothing there. That's the argument. That there is no evidence for it.

Occam's Razor seems to apply. The mental gymnastics (look at the length of the imaginative arguments to deny what is self-evidently true) betray an ulterior motive ie., justifying atheism.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, the absence of evidence etc. I'm happy with that. But if someone keeps telling you that there's a dragon in his basement and continually fails to prove it exists then eventually you reach a point where you have to say 'mate, honestly...there's nothing there'.

My sense is we're all still looking for the key to the basement.

And our naïve intuition heavily favors free will. Dragons, not so much.