Free will and determinism

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
2,073
285
Private
✟71,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Imagine if he threatened your family and said he'd kill them unless you stole a car for him.
Both coercion and seduction can cause us to act against our values (quasi Dennet). The former appeals to our hard-wired desire to survive or at least avoid pain, the latter our other hard-wired desire to be happy or at least to experience pleasure. Both external causes are transient and move us only when present to our senses. Neither alters our internal value system under which we freely make choices.

Only persuasion affects our internal values system (affections and attitudes) allows us to change our behavior freely w/o external forces weighing on us in the moment.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
2,073
285
Private
✟71,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I watched about half. I'd agree, if I understand you, that Sapolsky had the better of the argument.
I also watched the first 30-40 minutes. No doubt Sapolsky argues well. However, w/o seeing his data from which he makes quite strong declarative statements rather than probabilistic ones, I cannot agree with his conclusions. Correlating physical properties (objective measurements) to subjective inputs (eg., categorizing subsequent lifestyles or qualifying the conditions in upbringing) is never 100%.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
2,073
285
Private
✟71,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Not so different from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
It's been quite a while since I read Teilhard. I recall that he attempted to use secondary causes to permit a theistic evolution argument. In order to do so, Teilhard posited that a rock (or at least the lowest form of life) had the potential for free will and rationality. The argument fails under first principles of philosophy, ie., sufficient reason. An effect must be present in one or more of its causes -- you cannot give that which you do not possess. The church rejected Teilhard's argument for explaining man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
16,231
11,018
71
Bondi
✟258,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And we can see that all around us, people are choosing how they will behave, and what they will pursue, and what they choose to believe.
You cannot choose to believe. You listen to the evidence and it convinces you or it doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,743
15,826
Colorado
✟435,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
You chose to believe that..

I didn't.
and why?
Because, I know why i believe what i believe.
Sounds more like you were compelled to believe by these things you know.

Like when this knowledge is arrayed in front of you, there really is only one result from you that could actually happen. When only one result is possible, how is that a "choice"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
16,231
11,018
71
Bondi
✟258,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Both coercion and seduction can cause us to act against our values (quasi Dennet). The former appeals to our hard-wired desire to survive or at least avoid pain, the latter our other hard-wired desire to be happy or at least to experience pleasure. Both external causes are transient and move us only when present to our senses. Neither alters our internal value system under which we freely make choices.

Only persuasion affects our internal values system (affections and attitudes) allows us to change our behavior freely w/o external forces weighing on us in the moment.
Your decisions are a reflection of your values. And those values didn't simply appear fully formed from nowhere. You know how yours developed and were formed. You know the conditions under which that happened. They are specific to you. Mine are specific to me. No doubt that if you had lived my life, grown up and experienced my upbringing, had my education, run with the same crowd, seen what I have seen, lived where I have lived, then your values would not be the same as they are now.

Hell, my values aren't the same as they used to be. So how I choose has changed due to the influences to which I been exposed.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
16,231
11,018
71
Bondi
✟258,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I also watched the first 30-40 minutes. No doubt Sapolsky argues well. However, w/o seeing his data from which he makes quite strong declarative statements rather than probabilistic ones, I cannot agree with his conclusions. Correlating physical properties (objective measurements) to subjective inputs (eg., categorizing subsequent lifestyles or qualifying the conditions in upbringing) is never 100%.
I don't think that this is a matter that can be proved. You are either convinced by the arguments or you are not. But can you point to anything Sapolski said that needs data to back it up?
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
16,231
11,018
71
Bondi
✟258,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You chose to believe that..
No. I was persuaded by arguments in its favour. As I have been in regard to free will. These decisions we make are obviously formed from information we have received. From arguments we have listened to. If I'm convinced then there's no decision to make.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,743
15,826
Colorado
✟435,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
.....Only persuasion affects our internal values system (affections and attitudes) allows us to change our behavior freely w/o external forces weighing on us in the moment.
But persuasion appeals only to a particular self that youve inherited.

You do not get to choose what sort of self gets exposed to this new information - its the one you got, and theres no other. And this inherited self is disposed in a particular way, even if youre not fully conscious of it. So wheres the room for you to really choose how to react to persuasion?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,743
15,826
Colorado
✟435,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
But persuasion appeals only to a particular self that youve inherited.

You do not get to choose what sort of self gets exposed to this new information - its the one you got, and theres no other. And this inherited self is disposed in a particular way, even if youre not fully conscious of it. So wheres the room for you to really choose how to react to persuasion?
(I'm trying and failing to figure out how this is wrong, as I still cling to the idea of proper free will - the idea that you can be a true first cause in a causal chain that emerges from your own being).
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
16,231
11,018
71
Bondi
✟258,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
(I'm trying and failing to figure out how this is wrong, as I still cling to the idea of proper free will - the idea that you can be a true first cause in a causal chain that emerges from your own being).
It's a tough gig!
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critical Thinking ***contra*** Conformity!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,325
10,020
The Void!
✟1,141,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your decisions are a reflection of your values. And those values didn't simply appear fully formed from nowhere. You know how yours developed and were formed. You know the conditions under which that happened. They are specific to you. Mine are specific to me. No doubt that if you had lived my life, grown up and experienced my upbringing, had my education, run with the same crowd, seen what I have seen, lived where I have lived, then your values would not be the same as they are now.

Hell, my values aren't the same as they used to be. So how I choose has changed due to the influences to which I been exposed.

This has been an interesting thread so far, Bradskii. But as I'm pondering over the conceptual variables in the midst of the semantic tensions between what I consider to be amorphous terms analytically (i.e. both "free-will" and "determinism"--------------yeah, philosophically I'm not comfortable with either term), one of my concerns here is in how Sapolski's thesis doesn't end up being simply a more sophisticated form of Cultural Relativism? Since you've read his book, can you give me a sentence or two on how his thesis differs from CR?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
16,231
11,018
71
Bondi
✟258,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This has been an interesting thread so far, Bradskii. But as I'm pondering over the conceptual variables in the midst of the semantic tensions between what I consider to be amorphous terms analytically (i.e. both "free-will" and "determinism"--------------yeah, philosophically I'm not comfortable with either term), one of my concerns here is in how Sapolski's thesis doesn't end up being simply a more sophisticated form of Cultural Relativism? Since you've read his book, can you give me a sentence or two on how his thesis differs?
Culture is just one link in the chain of causality. And no-one could deny that cultures vary, often significantly. So being raised in one will affect the decision you might have made in another. Attitudes between people who were raised in pastoralist culture will differ to those raised in a farming culture. If you raise cattle as opposed to growing corn, then it's easier to lose a cow or two than half an acre of land. From the book:

'Such pastoralists are uniquely vulnerable. It’s hard to sneak in at night and steal someone’s rice field or rain forest. But you can be a sneaky varmint and rustle someone’s herd, stealing the milk and meat they survive on. This pastoralist vulnerability has generated “cultures of honor” with the following features: (a) extreme but temporary hospitality to the stranger passing through—after all, most pastoralists are wanderers themselves with their animals at some point; (b) adherence to strict codes of behavior, where norm violations are typically interpreted as insulting someone; (c) such insults demanding retributive violence—the world of feuds and vendettas lasting generations; (d) the existence of warrior classes and values where valor in battle produces high status and a glorious afterlife.'

From his footnotes: B. Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (Oxford University Press, 1982). Theory about the origins of the southern culture of honor among pastoralists in the British Isles: D. Fischer, Albion’s Seed (Oxford University Press, 1989).
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critical Thinking ***contra*** Conformity!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,325
10,020
The Void!
✟1,141,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Culture is just one link in the chain of causality. And no-one could deny that cultures vary, often significantly. So being raised in one will affect the decision you might have made in another. Attitudes between people who were raised in pastoralist culture will differ to those raised in a farming culture. If you raise cattle as opposed to growing corn, then it's easier to lose a cow or two than half an acre of land. From the book:

'Such pastoralists are uniquely vulnerable. It’s hard to sneak in at night and steal someone’s rice field or rain forest. But you can be a sneaky varmint and rustle someone’s herd, stealing the milk and meat they survive on. This pastoralist vulnerability has generated “cultures of honor” with the following features: (a) extreme but temporary hospitality to the stranger passing through—after all, most pastoralists are wanderers themselves with their animals at some point; (b) adherence to strict codes of behavior, where norm violations are typically interpreted as insulting someone; (c) such insults demanding retributive violence—the world of feuds and vendettas lasting generations; (d) the existence of warrior classes and values where valor in battle produces high status and a glorious afterlife.'

From his footnotes: B. Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (Oxford University Press, 1982). Theory about the origins of the southern culture of honor among pastoralists in the British Isles: D. Fischer, Albion’s Seed (Oxford University Press, 1989).

I guess I'm going to have to dig into Sapolsky's thesis a little more. I'm not clear yet on what definitions he's using for his concepts or how he constructed them. Thus far, I'm getting the awkward sense that he's implying that all of our thoughts are passively informed and involuntary. I know he's probably not really or fully implying this, but I'm not sure I understand the extent to which he's made sure that conceptual precision is at play in the usage of the chosen terms which he employs as descriptors within his thesis. It seems to me there's a hint of loose language in his theorizing and an over reliance on universal qualifiers that all too easily lend themselves to ambiguity and/or conflations.

Since the only real axiom in my own perspective is that "no one person knows everything," I tend to think there really are gaps in everyone's knowledge about the world, on whichever level, especially where our conceptual reflections on a topic invoke and involve some amount of history. Granted, I could be inductively wrong about this: it could be that Sapolsky is indeed a Black Swan and I just haven't accounted for that yet. And since I don't wish to be subject to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, myself, I'll hold out the possibility that he has explained his position comprehensively and inescapably and I'm just not fully grasping the weight of what he's saying.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aviel

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2023
619
150
62
Nashville
✟19,896.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sounds more like you were compelled to believe by these things you know.

Reader....

Learning is the acquisition of knowledge provided, that you chose to discover.

So, in front of you, I can sit a book of Photography, and a book on Cats, and a book on Calvinism, and book on Popes.

I then say..

"choose".

And you will.
You are going to choose something, because that is what everyone will do, next.

Denying this reality is just kinda dumb.
But, not everyone is smart or even kinda smart...., so, we choose to make allowances., in that case.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
2,073
285
Private
✟71,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But persuasion appeals only to a particular self that youve inherited.

You do not get to choose what sort of self gets exposed to this new information - its the one you got, and theres no other. And this inherited self is disposed in a particular way, even if youre not fully conscious of it. So wheres the room for you to really choose how to react to persuasion?
I disagree. Ironically, the thread demonstrates that each of us freely decide whether we have free will or not.

What we "inherit" is human nature (fallen human nature for Christians). The infant is inexcusably selfish, the toddler thinks everything is unfair if he doesn't get what he wants. Some of us choose to remain "toddlers" all our lives.

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,904
805
partinowherecular
✟90,472.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I was persuaded by arguments in its favour. As I have been in regard to free will. These decisions we make are obviously formed from information we have received. From arguments we have listened to. If I'm convinced then there's no decision to make.

So you've recently changed your opinion on free will, and I assume that this change of opinion was brought about by contemplating the idea, not by simply waking up one morning to find that your opinion had changed, although this too is possible. While something likely led you to contemplate the question in the first place, the contemplation itself probably took place on a conscious level, and your choice to reconsider your position also seems to have taken place on a conscious level.

So even if we accept the obvious fact that subconscious processes are involved in our choices, and may in fact dominate them, don't we still have the capacity, as you did, to consciously evaluate... not only the choice, but also the subconscious processes that may be influencing that choice? And does that ability to elevate and evaluate the process itself, have the capacity to free us from a purely subservient relationship with that process?

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

It's just a thought, but can we potentially break the grip of those subconscious processes simply by being aware of them?

Unfortunately, even when made aware of them, most people still have difficulty overcoming them. So even if true, being aware of the process doesn't guarantee that someone can overcome it. But is the potential there?
 
Upvote 0