Free will and determinism

[o_mlly]

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?

Well, there is no free will in that. But that is not how human beings choose.

Interesting that you write, "... in the nature of the person you have become ...". If "you have become" then you were not always so. When did you become something else? In every moral choice, you have an opportunity to become something else You may continue to choose as you always have eg., eat the jelly filled donut, or you may choose not to. You are now becoming something other than what you habitually were. If you continue to fast from jelly filled donuts then you exerted self-control over your body's appetite.

At that moment when you decide to accept or reject the grace that moves you to eat healthy, you are independent on all factors including the grace He provides. You always are "the master of your fate, the captain of your soul.".

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Well, unfortunately, there is only one of me.

We are rational beings ... we always have reasons for our moral choices. But that's not the issue. Free will says that we can deviate from all the impediments that constrain us and do something else, something other than what every cell in our body moves us to do.

'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

The study concludes:

Findings from the present study provide support for the hypothesis that susceptibility to behavioral problems may, in part, be programmed in utero, and that this effect may be mediated through the development of the amygdala. Furthermore, the study shows that exposure to a stressor during gestation exerts a lasting influence on child development. ​

​

The bolden words are important. Like Sapolsky, you draw too strong a conclusion that go beyond the study's actual findings.

I did not read your other citations as I am confident their conclusions will be much the same.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, there is no free will in that. But that is not how human beings choose.

Excellent. I've been hoping someone would show us a different basis upon which we make decisions besides the nature of the person we are at the time.

Interesting that you write, "... in the nature of the person you have become ...". If "you have become" then you were not always so. When did you become something else? In every moral choice, you have an opportunity to become something else You may continue to choose as you always have eg., eat the jelly filled donut, or you may choose not to. You are now becoming something other than what you habitually were. If you continue to fast from jelly filled donuts then you exerted self-control over your body's appetite.

Both determinists and free-willers (like me) agree with this: we change. Everything changes. Even God changes His mind once in a while, per the Bible.

At that moment when you decide to accept or reject the grace that moves you to eat healthy, you are independent on all factors including the grace He provides. You always are "the master of your fate, the captain of your soul.".

Wait! Where's the presentation of the alternate basis upon which we make decisions??? All you do is reiterate, basically: "we make decisions". I'm not seeing anything here that overturns a determinist view that:

A. we make decisions based on our own nature at the time. This nature is the reason we make a decision from among options arrayed before us. (I am still overcome by the enticement of unhealthy food. or...I am getting sick of being unhealthy.)

B. at any given moment, our nature is determined by our history. What else could our nature result from?

Id love to see the explanation of how we can come to be independent of the sort of person we are at any given time.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

I don't think that you even have to believe in free will to accept, at some level, one of the conclusions he comes to. That is, we should allow for extenuating circumstances when it comes to punishment a lot more than we do now.

The problem in that respect seems to be that when it's plainly obvious that there are such circumstances...we do. We allow for mental illness. We allow (in some cases) for crimes of passion. We allow for physiological problems such as the results of diabetes. But when it's hidden from us, then we don't. We blame the person and not what caused to the person to act as he did.

Someone like Sapolski is just waving a flag trying to catch our attention to tell us that there is a lot that we are unaware of which determine our actions. Should we treat someone who had the cards dealt against him literally before he was born exactly the same as someone who had all the benefits possible? It seems that some would say 'Hey, he should have just used his free will. His self control. It's his fault'.

If someone does have a psychological problem, through no fault of their own, then why shouldn't we take it into account?

 

[Bradskii]

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.

I haven't said that they are.

It's like driving to work. Nothing that happens on the route is under your control. Something like a major accident ahead will determine that you're going to be late getting to where you're going. Some things like the car in front driving a little too slowly for a short while or someone cutting you off with have a negligeable affect.

And maybe, if you hear about the accident ahead, you'll decide to take a different route. But, through no fault of your own you get a flat tyre. So now you're blocking traffic as well. Is that your fault because your decision was determined by someone's actions which caused the original accident?

 

[Bradskii]

... 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.

I've noticed that some people (Dennett being one) defines it in a way that suits their position. Some people, as we have seen in this discussion, simply think it's 'making a decision'. Maybe you should offer your own.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

The point has been that there is always a reason for what we do. Some events are so small in their influence that they're lost in the background noise. So they can be excluded. Others are very small but in the best tradition of sliding doors, they have a major effect.

The problem is that we are almost always blissfully unaware of the tremendous number of events, over which we have no control, that determine what we do. Therefore, we assume free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, unfortunately, there is only one of me.

We are rational beings ... we always have reasons for our moral choices. But that's not the issue. Free will says that we can deviate from all the impediments that constrain us and do something else, something other than what every cell in our body moves us to do.

So you end up doing what you prefer to do. Nobody is going to argue with that. Maybe I actually need to point out that when I say that your decisions are determined, they are determined in a way that leads to that which you'd prefer.

The study concludes...

It's a scientific study. Nobody doing such a survey is going to say 'X proves Y'. That's not the way it works. They will tell you that it supports other findings which have come to the same conclusion. Such as:

'The amygdala — a part of the brain involved in fear, aggression and social interactions — is implicated in crime. Among the research that points to this link is a neuroimaging study led by Dustin Pardini, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh. His team found that 26-year-old men with lower amygdala volumes were more than three times more likely to be aggressive, violent and to show psychopathic traits three years later than men of the same age with more normal-sized amygdalas — independent of factors including history of violence and social background'. The criminal mind

There are any number of scientific conclusions that confirm the link between the amygdala and anti social behaviour . Way too many to be discounted. And as regards other effect that will adjust your ACE score:

'Consistent with Cumulative Risk Theory, previous research with adults suggests that exposure to multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as abuse, neglect, exposure to domestic violence, parental substance abuse and incarceration, is predictive of many of the leading causes of health-risk behaviors in community samples of adults. Indeed, adults with a history of exposure to four or more ACEs, compared to those with no ACEs, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol, use illicit drugs, and engage in risky sexual behavior, ' Adverse Childhood Experiences and Health-Risk Behaviors in Vulnerable Early Adolescents).

Just like your dna doesn't directly determine your character, these effects don't guarantee a particular outcome. But they most definitely increase the likelihood of certain outcomes.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, unfortunately, there is only one of me.

Not the way you are presenting your argument.

There's the 'you' that is the sum total of all the characteristics that are the cumulative results of everything that has affected you in getting to this point. But then there seems to be another 'you' that is able to make decisions that can ignore everything that led you to that point. That operates in some way entirely independent of the other guy.

You've not given any indication of how this can happen, other than to say 'Well, I just decide. It's my free will'. You have been given umpteen examples of what leads us to make decisions, the reasons for them being made. But you haven't given us any reason why you'd do this. Except to say that it's what you really prefer.

Which exactly what I've been saying from the very first post. We do what we prefer to do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point has been that there is always a reason for what we do. Some events are so small in their influence that they're lost in the background noise. So they can be excluded. Others are very small but in the best tradition of sliding doors, they have a major effect.

The problem is that we are almost always blissfully unaware of the tremendous number of events, over which we have no control, that determine what we do. Therefore, we assume free will.

Yes, Bradskii. I understand the general descriptors, but what I'm getting at is that I'm not yet aware of how 'determinants' are identified, classified, and most importantly, measured for actual intensity of influence and/or causation. That's what I'm getting at. As it is, both 'free-will' and 'determination' seem like ethereal concepts without clear methods by which to measure these concepts. Does Sapolsky give any info on the scientific methods used to comprehensively capture that kind of data so all of this sort of discussion gets beyond merely philosophical or psychological speculation?

 

[Palmfever]

Hawking’s contributions to understanding the universe have been called the most significant since Einstein. Hawking theorized correctly that black holes emit radiation. He was also the first to describe a theory of cosmology that united general relativity and quantum mechanics, and is an ardent supporter of the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics.

As black holes emit particles, they will eventually lose mass, shrink, and disappear, but the question of what happens to the information they held remains.

“What happens to all the particles that fell into the black hole?” he asked. “They can’t just emerge when the black hole disappears. The particles that come out of a black hole seem to be completely random and bear no relation to what fell in. It appears that the information about what fell in is lost, apart from the total amount of mass and the amount of rotation.”

If that information is truly lost, Hawking said, that strikes at the heart of our understanding of science.

“For more than 200 years, we have believed in the science of determinism, that is that the laws of science determine the evolution of the universe,” he said. “If information were lost in black holes, we wouldn’t be able to predict the future because the black hole could emit any collection of particles.

“It might seem that it wouldn’t matter very much if we couldn’t predict what comes out of black holes — there aren’t any black holes near us,” he continued. “But it’s a matter of principle. If determinism — the predictability of the universe — breaks down in black holes, it could break down in other situations. Even worse, if determinism breaks down, we can’t be sure of our past history either. The history books and our memories could just be illusions. It is the past that tells us who we are. Without it, we lose our identity.”

To understand whether that information is in fact lost, or whether it can be recovered, Hawking and colleagues, including Andrew Strominger, the Gwill E. York Professor of Physics at Harvard, are currently working to understand “supertranslations” to explain the mechanism by which information is returned from a black hole and encoded on the hole’s “event horizon.”

Hawking at Harvard — Harvard Gazette

Acclaimed theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking discussed the mysterious qualities of black holes during his lecture at a packed Sanders Theatre.

news.harvard.edu

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, Bradskii. I understand the general descriptors, but what I'm getting at is that I'm not yet aware of how 'determinants' are identified, classified, and most importantly, measured for actual intensity of influence and/or causation. That's what I'm getting at. As it is, both 'free-will' and 'determination' seem like ethereal concepts without clear methods by which to measure these concepts. Does Sapolsky give any info on the scientific methods used to comprehensively capture that kind of data so all of this sort of discussion gets beyond merely philosophical or psychological speculation?

I've given some. Scientific conclusions on the effects of maternal conditions during pregnancy on foetal development. Effects of upbringing. ACE scores and the fact that they can be used determine the likelihood of problems in later life. Blood sugar levels affecting decision making. Poor diet affecting development. Education giving you more opportunities. The culture into which you are born affecting how you react to different situations.

And this is just scratching the surface of physiological determinants. There are literally an infinite number of events that end up determining what we choose. One seemingly nondescript example earlier was me breaking a guitar string leading to what I had for breakfast following day. There was a direct link. If I hadn't broken it I would have decided to have what was readily available. I wouldn't have decided to drive to to another suburb to get something different.

There is literally nothing you decide to do that isn't based on some reason. Which is caused by prior conditions. Unless you make a random decision. Or unless there is some other 'you' making the call independent of what you have experienced and independent on who you actually are.

And that doesn't even begin to make any sense.

 

[Bradskii]

If determinism — the predictability of the universe...

If that quote is correct then I'm surprised that he's conflating determinism with predictability. They are entirely different concepts. A system can be chaotic - that is, entirely unpredictable, but will still be deterministic.

Think of the parable of the lost nail in the horseshoe. For Want of a Nail - Wikipedia

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

If the nail was found to be missing then it would literally be impossible to predict, just from that fact, that a kingdom would fall. But there is a series of events leading from one to the other that undoubtedly led to that result. So it determined the result.

You can work backwards to find out what determined an event. But only in the very simplest of examples can you work forwards to predict it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've given some. Scientific conclusions on the effects of maternal conditions during pregnancy on foetal development. Effects of upbringing. ACE scores and the fact that they can be used determine the likelihood of problems in later life. Blood sugar levels affecting decision making. Poor diet affecting development. Education giving you more opportunities. The culture into which you are born affecting how you react to different situations.

And this is just scratching the surface of physiological determinants. There are literally an infinite number of events that end up determining what we choose. One seemingly nondescript example earlier was me breaking a guitar string leading to what I had for breakfast following day. There was a direct link. If I hadn't broken it I would have decided to have what was readily available. I wouldn't have decided to drive to to another suburb to get something different.

There is literally nothing you decide to do that isn't based on some reason. Which is caused by prior conditions. Unless you make a random decision. Or unless there is some other 'you' making the call independent of what you have experienced and independent on who you actually are.

And that doesn't even begin to make any sense.

I get all of that, but you seem to be using the same kind of blanket semantics for this that Christian fundamentalists do with their religious language, the difference is that rather than using the word 'God,' Sapolsky uses 'Determinant.' It's an over reliance on universal qualifiers like ALL or ANYTHING or EVERYTHING or NOTHING. These words don't actually clearly identify and measure ALL specific causative agents that are present within a phenomena. They may be present, but simply citing this as true isn't also to say that we've actually captured the whole of a circumstance, phenomena or its causation(s) and effects. Using the word "determines" too easily obfuscates the difference between the various influences that are at work upon us.

It's also seems to undercut the actualization of 2nd order thinking. It's almost like implying that we can never, ever be aware of influences upon us and act against them. Just because I have a strong taste, even an addictive taste, for a chocolate chip cookie doesn't mean I'll always decide to grab a chocolate chip cookie for munchie time.

No, I think we need better, more precise and specific words than determine or free-will since neither of these words have exacting referents and are used as easy go-to blanket words. I need to see Sapolsky's epistemology in order to calm my knee-jerk reaction to his superlative stance on determinism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think that you even have to believe in free will to accept, at some level, one of the conclusions he comes to. That is, we should allow for extenuating circumstances when it comes to punishment a lot more than we do now.

The problem in that respect seems to be that when it's plainly obvious that there are such circumstances...we do. We allow for mental illness. We allow (in some cases) for crimes of passion. We allow for physiological problems such as the results of diabetes. But when it's hidden from us, then we don't. We blame the person and not what caused to the person to act as he did.

Someone like Sapolski is just waving a flag trying to catch our attention to tell us that there is a lot that we are unaware of which determine our actions. Should we treat someone who had the cards dealt against him literally before he was born exactly the same as someone who had all the benefits possible? It seems that some would say 'Hey, he should have just used his free will. His self control. It's his fault'.

If someone does have a psychological problem, through no fault of their own, then why shouldn't we take it into account?

I think we both have the insight to know that in this sort of instance, Sapolsky is generally correct. (And I say this as one whose mother suffered from the kind of pathology that Sapolsky studies----schizophrenia and depression). So, yeah. In this regard, I "get it."

 

[durangodawood]

....It's also seems to undercut the actualization of 2nd order thinking. It's almost like implying that we can never, ever be aware of influences upon us and act against them. Just because I have a strong taste, even an addictive taste, for a chocolate chip cookie doesn't mean I'll always decide to grab a chocolate chip cookie for munchie time.....

I think reflective thinking is factored into the no free will model.

My capacity for self awareness, as well as my inclination to engage it, is part of the inescapable "me" that I bring to to the decision making moment. Its part of what will lead me to the particular inevitable preference thats natural to me at that moment.

 

[Bradskii]

These words don't actually clearly identify and measure ALL specific causative agents that are present within a phenomena.

Many are unknown. But if it's a deterministic universe then they must exist. That's the very definition of deterministic. Everything is caused by previous events. There's no need for any other term when the one encompasses everything we need.

They may be present, but simply citing this as true isn't also to say that we've actually captured the whole of a circumstance, phenomena or its causation(s) and effects. Using the word "determines" too easily obfuscates the difference between the various influences that are at work upon us.

It covers all influences. You are of course free to give any examples of something that happens without a cause.

It's also seems to undercut the actualization of 2nd order thinking. It's almost like implying that we can never, ever be aware of influences upon us and act against them. Just because I have a strong taste, even an addictive taste, for a chocolate chip cookie doesn't mean I'll always decide to grab a chocolate chip cookie for munchie time.

It doesn't matter how many orders of thinking you go through. You end up doing what you want to for the reasons you want to do it. I don't want to go to the gym - I'd rather go to the pub. But my long term desires override my short term ones.

No, I think we need better, more precise and specific words than determine or free-will since neither of these words have exacting referents and are used as easy go-to blanket words. I need to see Sapolsky's epistemology in order to calm my knee-jerk reaction to his superlative stance on determinism.

Those terms are used because they exactly define what's being discussed. Redefine them and we wont be talking about the same thing.

 

[o_mlly]

A. we make decisions based on our own nature at the time. This nature is the reason we make a decision from among options arrayed before us. (I am still overcome by the enticement of unhealthy food. or...I am getting sick of being unhealthy.)

B. at any given moment, our nature is determined by our history. What else could our nature result from?

Id love to see the explanation of how we can come to be independent of the sort of person we are at any given time.

Human nature does not change any more than the natural laws of physics change. Our affections and attitudes may change but our nature as willing, thinking, and feeling beings does not.

Wait! Where's the presentation of the alternate basis upon which we make decisions??? All you do is reiterate, basically: "we make decisions". I'm not seeing anything here that overturns a determinist view that:

? I've posted several times the basis for making our moral choices. Our affections determine our attitudes, and our attitudes determine our behaviors. Perhaps an example will help you. Yesterday I watched the first hour of an old movie called "Deep Impact".

A character in the movie is portrayed as a despicable husband who is cheating on his wife, who in her grief turns to alcohol and subsequently suffers a nervous breakdown. Her husband has had a private telephone line installed in his home office. When the phone rings, he goes into his office and closes the door. Once, when the phone rang in his absence, she picked up and no one replied to her, "Hello". This has been going on for a year. She often overhears him on that phone talking with someone named "Ellie".

What affection would you have for such a man? What attitude do you form regarding him? No affection and a negative attitude, right?

Now you learn that he is actually a member of the President's cabinet, and he has been talking to the President on this private line. They are not talking about "Ellie but an "E.L.E.", Extinction Level Event. The President has commanded that his cabinet remain silent regarding these conversations so as to not alarm the public until a solution to the impending impact is in place.

Have you changed your affection for this character? Have you altered your attitude toward him? Yes. So too, will your behavior now change.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many are unknown. But if it's a deterministic universe then they must exist. That's the very definition of deterministic. Everything is caused by previous events. There's no need for any other term when the one encompasses everything we need.

It covers all influences. You are of course free to give any examples of something that happens without a cause.

It doesn't matter how many orders of thinking you go through. You end up doing what you want to for the reasons you want to do it. I don't want to go to the gym - I'd rather go to the pub. But my long term desires override my short term ones.

Those terms are used because they exactly define what's being discussed. Redefine them and we wont be talking about the same thing.

But there's an analytically qualifiable difference between a definition and an explanation. A definition can be resorted to, but the simple use of a definition does not explain or demonstrate justification for holding that definition as Absolute and Supremely True. No, all we're doing with the terms in this discussion is.............................using them wantonly. I guess a forum like this isn't the place to get into the analytic nitty-gritty of epistemology.

I see now why I could never get far into this Free-Will VS. Determinism issue. It just doesn't have the epistemic explanatory power I'm looking for. Still, that doesn't mean I think Sapolsky is dead wrong on all counts. No, he's one more scholar who has a few salient points to add to the totality of all of those that I already personally draw from. For the time being, I'll just stick with my consideration of Soft Determinism over Hard Determinism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've noticed that some people (Dennett being one) defines it in a way that suits their position. Some people, as we have seen in this discussion, simply think it's 'making a decision'. Maybe you should offer your own.

I don't like offering my own definitions for ideas or phenomena that I don't personally have a clear perspective on. In another post, I prompted the term of the 'bounded will' as my own personal meme for understanding my cognitive functions in a structured universe, but it's not a term I'd support, let alone write 500 pages about. Oops! .... my existential slip is showing.