Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Yes but its the depth of choice, the quality of choice.

The process is the same. You are determining preferences. Whether it's a new job or eggs instead of cereal

Thats like saying remove the radio reciever and you remove the reality of radio waves.

No it's not. It's saying that if you dismantle the transmitter then it can't send out anything. If you dismantle the receiver it can't receive anything. It'll be, as they say, dead. But radio waves are still real. It's just that you won't be transmitting any.

Yes this is the best way as your asking directly the person who is having the experience that they believe they are agents and have some control. I think you will find that most people will say they believe they have some control with their choices.

Everyone will. Including me. It feels exactly like I have some control. But I'll tell you the reasons I made a decision (that's why you were asking). At least the ones that I know of. The ones that determined my choice. I'm still waiting for you to give me an example that had no reason. An example that wasn't determined by antecedent conditions.

We we cannot know what we cannot know. But that doesn't mean that we cannot override what we cannot know by coming to know or have insight into ourselves and the situation that we can make informed decisions that can influence situations. I would say most of what happens at the subconscious level are to do with practible everyday stuff we don't think about like mapping out territory for threats. We develop patterns of thinking and it comes natural.

You can't make a conscious decision on knowledge that you don't have. Free will doesn't live there. There may be circumstances about which you are unconsciously aware and your choice may be subconsciously determined by some of them. But then it won't be a free will choice.

I think theres a whole bunch of stuff in the mind that goes into how we decide from, physical processes, instincts, cultural influences, and knowledge from our conscious experiences of reality.

The reality of the circumstances - which weren't under your control, your inbuilt instinctive behaviour - which is obviously nothing to do with free will, the culture into which you grew up in - obviously not a conscious decision by you, and knowledge and education that you have gained as you have grown - all that input you have been subjected to which was an accident of your particular circumstances. All those and more determine your actions.

Yeah its a complex topic and I don't think anyone has a clear answer or explanation.

I've been explaining it for quite some time now. I'll grant that it can't be proved but to say 'there's no explanation' is completely nonsensical. Maybe what you meant to say was that you don't agree with any explanation that you've read or listened to.

We see this evdience across life. For example speaking of evolution Darwins theory is inadequate for explaining human behaviour as behaviour cannot be reduced back to proteins and DNA. Not completely anyway. The MOdern Theory relegates the creatures behaviour as like an epiphenomena byproduct of natural selection and random mutations.

Yet much of behaviour is is not subject to natural selection and infact creatures are sort of artificial selectors playing the role of natural selection in the choices and behaviour they engage in.

I'd skip the evolutionary aspects of this if I were you. I don't want to be rude, but you've made a couple of dopey statements on it so far that weren't even wrong. Just accept that you are part of the evolutionary process and forget about the details as it relates to free will.

For example evolution claims creatures are shaped by environments where only those who have been adapted to those environments by the outside force of mutation and natural selection will survive. But the evidence shows that much of this adaptability comes from creatures changing environments rather than environments changing creatures.

Whether you stayed where you were and the environment changed or you moved to a different environment for whatever reason, it makes no difference. You decide to move or you decide to stay. The environment changes or it doesn't. Either way it will affect the process. Or it won't. I mean, really, let's skip evolution.

So this flips the classical view from creatures being passive players suchject to deterministic forces to aagents playing a central role in directing their own outcomes and not completely fixed and controlled by nature.

So you're going with free will in prehistoric times. Well, that's a big step. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that present day chimps even have a theory of mind, let alone free will. But there you go, it's where your thought processes have taken you.

 

[Bradskii]

Baffled? The semantics claim referred not to the fact that the "past is fixed" but, as I wrote, to the change from active to passive voices in describing how the past affects the future behavior of the actor.

I think you said that the past is most definitely not fixed. If you wanted to say that the past affects our future behaviour (was it really necessary to point that out?) then this statement is a really weird way of putting it: 'The past is done but not fixed...'

Since "free will" has no length, width, depth, mass or physical location the materialists are understandably baffled in their attempts to understand it.

More like concerned at the lack of evidence for its existence.

What baffles me, and I suppose most everyone else, is that the materialists agree that it feels like they have free will, they certainly act as if they have free will, and then against all common sense they claim, "Nope we don't think we have free will".

Well, you said there's no evidence, apart from 'look, I made a decision'. So balancing that (and variations on that theme) against the opposing evidence as to how circumstances beyond our control affect the decisions we make, it leads to a certain conclusion.

 

[Bradskii]

At last, some progress: moral choices are always acts of free will. You do know that you put your OP into the "Ethics and Morality" forum, right? If you wanted to discuss or debate the physics of free will, there is another forum for that discussion. Good luck over there.

It seems that moral questions about free will and responsibility muddy the waters for you. Try thinking about non moral matters first and see where it goes.

 

[durangodawood]

So, we should add some amnesia to your inattentiveness? Get serious or get lost but either way spare me your inept ad hominens.

Either way, its correct that you were attempting to leverage the common meaning of the word to try to force a conclusion, when in fact its what the word should mean thats at issue here.

What is a "choice"? What is a "decision"?

Are they courses of action taken potentially independent of any prior reasons? Or are they the inevitable result of all applicable accumulated conditions?

 

[durangodawood]

.....What baffles me, and I suppose most everyone else, is that the materialists agree that it feels like they have free will, they certainly act as if they have free will, and then against all common sense they claim, "Nope we don't think we have free will".

Ive learned this great philosophy term "naive intuition" - which labels all our unexamined senses about how the world works, the stuff that just immediately seems true.

Some wikipedia examples from physics are:

• What goes up must come down
• A dropped object falls straight down
• A solid object cannot pass through another solid object
• A vacuum sucks things towards it
• An object is either at rest or moving, in an absolute sense
• Two events are either simultaneous or they are not

Naïve physics - Wikipedia

But none of those have survived scrutiny deeper than our immediate intuition.

The proposal in this thread is that free-will is a similar strong intuition that does not survive closer scrutiny. For me, I would privilege our naive intuitions somewhat. I'd say they are correct until reason or observation compels otherwise. But I do not give them absolute immunity. Perhaps this reduces your bafflement somewhat?

 

[Bradskii]

So, you agree that we all should just wait, as I posted long ago, until you read your next book with a positive push on free will. Since your non-existent free will cannot resist being changed by the new info. The old saying goes, "If you want to know what he thinks, just ask the last one he talked to."

Belief is like a flywheel. It spins a little quicker in either direction when you are given evidence for or against something. My free will wheel was spinning in the positive direction. We had it. It was obvious. Look, I made a decision! Really humming along quite nicely. But some things I read over the years started slowing it down. The evidence for it seemed lacking. Even when presented by people I would generally accept as trustworthy. The minority were presenting the opposing view. But I found them more convincing.

Eventually the wheel stopped and started moving in the opposite direction. It took a long time and a lot of reading. And now, after quite a few years, it's humming along again. And a lot faster than it was when it was spinning the other way. To the extent that one has to make a call at some point. At some point you realise that you've read most of the arguments for and against. They keep coming up in different formats by different people. So I've called it. I've nailed those colours to the mast. I might be wrong. But I sincerely doubt it.

So one book? Yeah....right. Maybe it's psychologically easier for you to dismiss it all if you think it's just the latest fad. Who knows. I'd prefer you to treat the subject, and me, with a little more respect. But on past experiences, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[o_mlly]

Either way, its correct that you were attempting to leverage the common meaning of the word to try to force a conclusion, when in fact its what the word should mean thats at issue here.

Did you read what you just posted? One does not leverage the common meaning, they only can cite it, as I did. And then curiously you suggest that there exists a moral (should) obligation to redefine words differently than common sense dictates in order to support your imagined and unsupported claim.

I see nothing new in the posts from the materialists in their fantasies about the non-existence of free will. Well, I suppose that makes sense. They think they are not free to change their minds.

 

[o_mlly]

It took a long time and a lot of reading. And now, after quite a few years, it's humming along again. And a lot faster than it was when it was spinning the other way. To the extent that one has to make a call at some point.

Do you not think man is just a really smart chimp? And if so, does that belief underpin your dismissal of the existence of free will in man? If not, why not?

I'd prefer you to treat the subject, and me, with a little more respect.

That's rich. Pot meet kettle, as the saying goes. You reap what you sow.

 

[durangodawood]

Did you read what you just posted? One does not leverage the common meaning, they only can cite it, as I did.

When the validity of the word itself is the topic of dispute, then yes invoking the word as if its just assumed valid is, basically, just assuming the conclusion.

And then curiously you suggest that there exists a moral (should) obligation to redefine words differently than common sense dictates in order to support your imagined and unsupported claim.

Words should map well to reality. When new knowledge comes to light, sometimes the meaning of a word shifts, or we find the word is no longer useful at all.

Note that "should" has an instrumental sense in addition to the moral sense you invoked.

 

[Bradskii]

They think they are not free to change their minds.

How can you argue against something when you constantly keep getting the basics wrong? We do change. Circumstances change us. So we make different decisions. We change our minds. Your racist changed his mind about black people.

 

[durangodawood]

....We change our minds......

Thats kind of free will language there. I know you dont mean it but it suggests that decision making can originate at least somewhat in a sovereign self.

 

[o_mlly]

I'd say they are correct until reason or observation compels otherwise.

OK. We cannot observe free will directly as a cause. We can only infer from observed effects its properties. If you are compelled that the preponderance of evidence in those same observed effects that you are devoid of free will then how do you explain that the vast majority of others have not in history and do not now agree with your conclusion.

 

[o_mlly]

We change our minds.

Thats kind of free will language there. I know you dont mean it but it suggests that decision making can originate at least somewhat in a sovereign self.

Durango ... has faster fingers than I.

 

[durangodawood]

OK. We cannot observe free will directly as a cause. We can only infer from observed effects its properties. If you are compelled that the preponderance evidence in those same observed that you are devoid of free will then how do you explain that the vast majority others have not in history and do not now agree with your conclusion.

Just to be clear, again, I'm actually with you on what we believe: that proper free will is real. I'm just trying to test my belief against the best counter arguments I can find.

My best explanation for the ubiquity of free will belief - IF its in fact a false belief - is that its a "naive intuition" in the sense I explained earlier. I dont find that explanation too "far out", as we've seen other strong naive intuitions fall.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you not think man is just a really smart chimp?

Yes. But to the extent that free will might be considered possible for us. But not for chimps. Instinct can take you so far. But you start to need second and third level thought processes at some point. So even if a negative act was instinctive, it gets to the point where 'I don't like that' isn't sufficient. And 'I'm going to react to that' still isn't. What you need is 'Even if the act was determined (perhaps instinctive) we need to apportion blame and act accordingly'.

And by apportioning blame you are granting a degree of responsibility and then assuming free will. Let's face it, if it didn't exist then nothing would change. Why would evolution go to the trouble of developing something that wasn't needed?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. But to the extent that free will might be considered possible for us. But not for chimps. Instinct can take you so far. But you start to need second and third level thought processes at some point. So even if a negative act was instinctive, it gets to the point where 'I don't like that' isn't sufficient. And 'I'm going to react to that' still isn't. What you need is 'Even if the act was determined (perhaps instinctive) we need to apportion blame and act accordingly'.

And by apportioning blame you are granting a degree of responsibility and then assuming free will. Let's face it, if it didn't exist then nothing would change. Why would evolution go to the trouble of developing something that wasn't needed?

Bradskii, to strengthen the case of the form of Determinism that you, via Sapolsky, are vying for, you might need to disambiguate it from other similar terms that exist on the taxonomic continuum, such as 'Fatalism.'

Without doing this as such it seems that Sapolsky's thesis, despite the scientific evidence he has attempted to garner for it, remains only a step away from Begging the Question and not sinking into a bog semantic obfuscation in order to save appearances.

Moreover, since all of this discussion is smack in the middle of the Ethics forum, I'm not going to be the one to say that the 'rapist' was comprehensively determined by certain unaccounted for determiners and had no choice and couldn't help but to do what he did ...

 

[Bradskii]

Thats kind of free will language there. I know you dont mean it but it suggests that decision making can originate at least somewhat in a sovereign self.

Of course it can.

If you are doing nothing and there's just one option open to you to do something - say follow the path you are on, then you still have to make a decision. Carry on doing nothing or follow the path. If there is a fork in the path then you decide to carry on as you were or take the new route. It's not possible to do anything at all without making a decision. And nobody makes the decision but you.

That is just not in dispute. It is literally indisputable. So that decision making process in itself, by a sovereign self, cannot be described as free will. If for no other reason than if it was then well over 2,000 years of debate on this have been about something that everyone agrees happens.

It's not making the decision which is the bone of contention. It'd the antecedent conditions. What happened in the split second before it was made. The minute before. The hours and the days before. A lifetime before. Literally millions of years before. Either a limitless number of conditions led to the decision being made or the decision was made in some way outside of all those influences.

That is not possible. There are causes for every choice I make. Most of which I have no knowledge. The ones I do know about lead me directly to the decision and if they were different I'd have made a different decision. Hence no free will.

 

[durangodawood]

.....What you need is 'Even if the act was determined (perhaps instinctive) we need to apportion blame and act accordingly'.
.....

In the determinist view, blame can be considered not a fallacy, but a behavior reinforcement tool, setting up consequences that will help determine peoples behavior to society's advantage going forward.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii, to strengthen the case of the form of Determinism that you, via Sapolsky, are vying for, you might need to disambiguate it from other similar terms that exist on the taxonomic continuum, such as 'Fatalism.'

Without doing this as such it seems that Sapolsky's thesis, despite the scientific evidence he has attempted to garner for it, remains only a step away from Begging the Question and not sinking into a bog semantic obfuscation in order to save appearances.

Moreover, since all of this discussion is smack in the middle of the Ethics forum, I'm not going to be the one to say that the 'rapist' was comprehensively determined by certain unaccounted for determiners and had no choice and couldn't help but to do what he did ...

I gave a definition of causal determination waaay upstream. To you, if I remember. That will suffice. I'm not keen in getting into the semantic undergrowth.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course it can.

If you are doing nothing and there's just one option open to you to do something - say follow the path you are on, then you still have to make a decision. Carry on doing nothing or follow the path. If there is a fork in the path then you decide to carry on as you were or take the new route. It's not possible to do anything at all without making a decision. And nobody makes the decision but you.

That is just not in dispute. It is literally indisputable. So that decision making process in itself, by a sovereign self, cannot be described as free will. If for no other reason than if it was then well over 2,000 years of debate on this have been about something that everyone agrees happens.

It's not making the decision which is the bone of contention. It'd the antecedent conditions. What happened in the split second before it was made. The minute before. The hours and the days before. A lifetime before. Literally millions of years before. Either a limitless number of conditions led to the decision being made or the decision was made in some way outside of all those influences.

That is not possible. There are causes for every choice I make. Most of which I have no knowledge. The ones I do know about lead me directly to the decision and if they were different I'd have made a different decision. Hence no free will.

Hmm. I was careful about saying "decision making can originate at least somewhat in a sovereign self".

"Originate" is supposed to mean that some part of the decision can happen independent of antecedent conditions. That was my intent anyway.