Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Can the car drive off a cliff and commit suicide, without having been programmed by human minds to have that choice?

The car will do specific things in specific circumstances. It's just that circumstances change, and the car adapts accordingly.

It would need to prefer that option. To understand if it could then you'd have to compare it to the reasons why you'd do it. If your only options were to swerve over the cliff edge or run down your child then you might prefer the cliff. And the car might well take that option as well. But if you drive over a cliff because you are depressed and want to end it all, then the car hasn't got that option. How do you programme it to be depressed?

As with two other posters in this thread, you have no argument for determinism other than a bald assertion, based on a belief in materialism. "As far as we can tell, everything operates according to laws of physics, therefore the human mind must also." But you've no evidence or argument that this is the case. And I would have thought with the discovery of QM people would be a little more open-minded.

I don't say 'On the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow, we'll go to the beach'. I don't say 'On the assumption that I don't get killed by a herd of stampeding elephants, I'll see you for a beer tonight'. The sun might not rise. You might get trampled by elephants. But the sun comes up every day. It has for the last few billion years. And there aren't any herds of elephants in my suburb. There never has been. Adding the conditional is superfluous.

Just like there may be a dragon in my basement. But if there's nothing there every time I look and there's no evidence for its existence whatoever, then I'm not going to tell my wife ' On the assumption that there's no dragon down there, I'll go down and look for the Xmas decorations'.

In the same way, there might be something that happened somewhere at some time that occurred for no reason. But if there's zero evidence for that happening at any time and in any place then I'm most definitely not going to preface every statement I make about determinism with 'On the assumption that determinism is true and that nothing happens without a cause...'

I have made that assumption. And I have continuously asked throughout this thread for any example that would contradict it. None has been forthcoming. But you are free to mentally add that italicized conditional to any and all of the statements.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Apologies for the late reply.

OK, so there's more to free will than the "possibility of choosing differently between at least 2 options". 'Desires' are necessary too.

I don't think desires are necessary.

They can be, but aren't necessarily.

A human also has goals (desires) consisting of a hierarchy of tasks with dynamic priorities.

And this is why the two door example is so useful.. The room is devoid of stimuli apart from a light source. There's no distinguishing difference between door left and door right apart from relative position. Without any food source or means of waste disposal....any desire to leave the room that isn't present initially can be reasonably assumed to manifest eventually. Despite all the internal, genetic, and deep psychological facets of personality inherent in genetics....I've never heard of one that results in a preference for "left"or "right" in the abstract....particularly when both choices appear to have an equal potential to fulfill the desire to leave the room.

 

[Neogaia777]

And this is why the two door example is so useful.. The room is devoid of stimuli apart from a light source. There's no distinguishing difference between door left and door right apart from relative position. Without any food source or means of waste disposal....any desire to leave the room that isn't present initially can be reasonably assumed to manifest eventually. Despite all the internal, genetic, and deep psychological facets of personality inherent in genetics....I've never heard of one that results in a preference for "left"or "right" in the abstract....particularly when both choices appear to have an equal potential to fulfill the desire to leave the room. It's certainly possible that some such preference exists....but because I can't feel it (particularly because I cannot feel it, it never enters the conscious choice being made) so it's not obvious that it's going to affect the outcome so significantly that it's a certain outcome every time....you know, if such a preference exists on a subconscious level.

Both of those choices to leave the room are never equal or 50/50, and like never are "ever", etc, and are always different depending on the individual person, and you have to ask yourself that if all other causes or influences involved are not ever present or have been eliminated in this thought experiment, then what are the causes for those differences in percentages, and why they would be different for each individual person, anyway, or regardless, especially if you have done your best to eliminate any of the other factors that you would normally think are to always be involved or are always to be present always?

I submit that it is each person's history up to that point that makes them different, or never 50/50, or already slanted one way or the other depending on each individual person who each has a very, very different and unique history up to that point that at the very least has already predisposed them to picking one door or the other already, depending on the unique individual person involved.

The only way they could ever be 50/50 is if you completely wiped out a person's whole history in this thought experiment, which would be like starting someone with a completely blank slate, which would be like asking yourself when that exactly starts for a human being exactly, which might go all the way back to the first cell division, or when the sperm first meets the egg in the womb maybe. Then it could be 50/50 maybe, but not at all at any time immediately after that ever, because immediately at that point, or starting right immediately after that point, nothing is ever 50/50 for any human being ever again either immediately at that point, or right after that ever again at or after that point, etc.

Which tells us that that all has much, much more influence than we ever think, and a whole heck of a lot more influence/determination/predetermination/power over our "choices" than we ever give it credit for, since it immediately begins influencing/affecting the percentages right away for each individual person, and does this right away immediately for each one differently, etc. And it is my theory/belief/idea that it (us, our choices, etc) has already been 100% determined/predetermined/known starting from there (the moment we are considered to be "alive", or a living thing, etc) with both us, and also "everything", etc (because even although not everything is a living thing, the same rules apply for all things etc)

For an individual human being, I think the moment the sperm met up with the egg, and began combining DNA and forming our unique makeup, and began cell division, that it's all been a program since then, and can only ever go one way, and has already determined/predetermined everything for us since then, etc. And that everything else in the world was before that happened also (before each individual person happened, etc) and also that will be after that/this always also, etc. It's all always been just one single possibility, etc. Not two or more ever, but just only ever one possibility only, etc, and this from the very beginning of this universe and everything, etc. This universe has always ever only been, just one possibility ever only, etc. If there are other actual possibilities that actually exist, then you'd have to be talking about adding another dimension, or other multiple different universes, or a theoretical multiverse or something, etc. Of which there is absolutely no evidence not just for, but even pointing to, or even suggesting toward yet, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Both of those choices to leave the room are never equal or 50/50, and like never are "ever", etc, and are always different depending on the individual person, and you have to ask yourself that if all other causes or influences involved are not ever present or have been eliminated in this thought experiment, then what are the causes for those differences in percentages, and why they would be different for each individual person, anyway, or regardless, especially if you have done your best to eliminate any of the other factors that you would normally think are to always be involved or are always to be present always?

I submit that it is each person's history up to that point that makes them different, or never 50/50, or already slanted one way or the other depending on each individual person who each has a very, very different and unique history up to that point that at the very least has already predisposed them to picking one door or the other already, depending on the unique individual person involved.

The only way they could ever be 50/50 is if you completely wiped out a person's whole history in this thought experiment, which would be like starting someone with a completely blank slate, which would be like asking yourself when that exactly starts for a human being exactly, which might go all the way back to the first cell division, or when the sperm first meets the egg in the womb maybe. Then it could be 50/50 maybe, but not at all at any time immediately after that ever, because immediately at that point, or starting right immediately after that point, nothing is ever 50/50 for any human being ever again either immediately at that point, or right after that ever again at or after that point, etc.

Which tells us that that all has much, much more influence that we ever think, and a whole heck of a lot more influence/determination/predetermination/power over our "choices" than we ever give it credit for, since it immediately begins influencing/affecting the percentages right away for each individual person, and does this right away immediately for each one differently, etc. And it is my theory/belief/idea that it (us, our choices, etc) has already been 100% determined/predetermined/known starting from there (the moment we are considered to be "alive", or a living thing, etc) with both us, and also "everything", etc (because even although not everything is a living thing, the same rules apply for all things etc)

For an individual human being, I think the moment the sperm met up with the egg, and began combining DNA and forming our unique makeup, and began cell division, that it's all been a program since then, and can only ever go one way, and has already determined/predetermined everything for us since then, etc. And that everything else in the world was before that happened also (before each individual person happened, etc) and also that will be after that/this always also, etc. It's all always been just one single possibility, etc. Not two or more ever, but just only ever one possibility only, etc, and this from the very beginning of this universe and everything, etc. This universe has always ever only been, just one possibility ever only, etc. If there are other actual possibilities that actually exist, then you'd have to be talking about adding another dimension, or other multiple different universes, or a theoretical multiverse or something, etc. Of which there is absolutely no evidence not just for, but even pointing to, or even suggesting toward yet, etc.

Take Care.

I'm just going to use this as an example, especially since it applies to "everything in the universe", etc.

But if you were to take people for example, if you could somehow mathematically figure out or determine every possible combination of every kind of human DNA there ever was, or ever would be, and what would be the exact results of all of those combinations, or all of that, etc, then you could probably come up with the beginnings of a human "kind" or "type" maybe, etc.

But, then, after that, you would also have to consider what happens after that with each and every single one each individually also, and how it would for sure individually affect each one of those types each individually, etc, and be able to figure that all out also, etc. Then if you could combine or calculate all of that, then you might just be somewhat close to just scratching the surface of being able to predict/know every single kind of type of human being, etc. Which then might just begin to allow you to just start to be able to predict or know what each individual one would choose in your two door experiment also, etc. And also maybe just exactly "when" each individual one would decide to do it or make that choice also (when they would choose what door according to each type, etc) Then and only then would you just be starting to begin to truly know humanity, and each individual human being each individually, etc. But my other point is that it's all deterministic also, etc. It's just that, right now, we don't know how to fully understand all of those things, etc. But it's a "program" though, etc. And is very, very much deterministic, etc. Just as everything in this universe/reality is, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm just going to use this as an example, especially since it applies to "everything in the universe", etc.

But if you were to take people for example, if you could somehow mathematically figure out or determine every possible combination of every kind of human DNA there ever was, or ever would be, and what would be the exact results of all of those combinations, or all of that, etc, then you could probably come up with the beginnings of a human "kind" or "type" maybe, etc.

But, then, after that, you would also have to consider what happens after that with each and every single one each individually also, and how it would for sure individually affect each one of those types each individually, etc, and be able to figure that all out also, etc. Then if you could combine or calculate all of that, then you might just be somewhat close to just scratching the surface of being able to predict/know every single kind of type of human being, etc. Which then might just begin to allow you to just start to be able to predict or know what each individual one would choose in your two door experiment also, etc. And also maybe just exactly "when" each individual one would decide to do it or make that choice also (when they would choose what door according to each type, etc) Then and only then would you just be starting to begin to truly know humanity, and each individual human being each individually, etc. But my other point is that it's all deterministic also, etc. It's just that, right now, we don't know how to fully understand all of those things, etc. But it's a "program" though, etc. And is very, very much deterministic, etc. Just as everything in this universe/reality is, etc.

God Bless.

And I thought this was a given, but maybe I need to include it? But different things affect different types all differently, and the same thing affects different kinds of types all differently, as far as to what happens or starts immediately after being able to figure out or determine the different kinds of types, just so you all know all of that, ok.

So it's a complex calculation, but not beyond knowable, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm just going to use this as an example, especially since it applies to "everything in the universe", etc.

But if you were to take people for example, if you could somehow mathematically figure out or determine every possible combination of every kind of human DNA there ever was, or ever would be, and what would be the exact results of all of those combinations, or all of that, etc, then you could probably come up with the beginnings of a human "kind" or "type" maybe, etc.

But, then, after that, you would also have to consider what happens after that with each and every single one each individually also, and how it would for sure individually affect each one of those types each individually, etc, and be able to figure that all out also, etc. Then if you could combine or calculate all of that, then you might just be somewhat close to just scratching the surface of being able to predict/know every single kind of type of human being, etc. Which then might just begin to allow you to just start to be able to predict or know what each individual one would choose in your two door experiment also, etc. And also maybe just exactly "when" each individual one would decide to do it or make that choice also (when they would choose what door according to each type, etc) Then and only then would you just be starting to begin to truly know humanity, and each individual human being each individually, etc. But my other point is that it's all deterministic also, etc. It's just that, right now, we don't know how to fully understand all of those things, etc. But it's a "program" though, etc. And is very, very much deterministic, etc. Just as everything in this universe/reality is, etc.

God Bless.

And I thought this was a given, but maybe I need to include it? But different things affect different types all differently, and the same thing affects different kinds of types all differently, as far as to what happens or starts immediately after being able to figure out or determine the different kinds of types, just so you all know all of that, ok.

So it's a complex calculation, but not beyond knowable, etc.

God Bless.

All of these is beyond yours/mine/ours choosings, and so determines all of our choosings, etc. Including what door and when in a two door experiment if there is nothing else involved, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

It would need to prefer that option.

The car cannot prefer. I can't imagine a process step in a flowchart for software saying "Do what you prefer". I can imagine it in a flowchart intended for humans, but for software that would amount to "garbage in".

To understand if it could then you'd have to compare it to the reasons why you'd do it. If your only options were to swerve over the cliff edge or run down your child then you might prefer the cliff. And the car might well take that option as well.

My question included the caveat "without having that option programmed in".

But if you drive over a cliff because you are depressed and want to end it all, then the car hasn't got that option. How do you programme it to be depressed?

How do you program a human to be depressed?

I don't say 'On the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow, we'll go to the beach'. I don't say 'On the assumption that I don't get killed by a herd of stampeding elephants, I'll see you for a beer tonight'. The sun might not rise. You might get trampled by elephants. But the sun comes up every day. It has for the last few billion years. And there aren't any herds of elephants in my suburb. There never has been. Adding the conditional is superfluous.

Just like there may be a dragon in my basement. But if there's nothing there every time I look and there's no evidence for its existence whatoever, then I'm not going to tell my wife ' On the assumption that there's no dragon down there, I'll go down and look for the Xmas decorations'.

In the same way, there might be something that happened somewhere at some time that occurred for no reason. But if there's zero evidence for that happening at any time and in any place then I'm most definitely not going to preface every statement I make about determinism with 'On the assumption that determinism is true and that nothing happens without a cause...'

I have made that assumption. And I have continuously asked throughout this thread for any example that would contradict it. None has been forthcoming. But you are free to mentally add that italicized conditional to any and all of the statements.

You have the evidence. You know full well you freely make many, many choices every day. You just choose not to believe it. You also know other people choose. If someone steals money from you, I suspect you wouldn't say "Oh well, that was determined. He couldn't help doing that. No need to be upset about it."

 

[Bradskii]

The car cannot prefer. I can't imagine a process step in a flowchart for software saying "Do what you prefer". I can imagine it in a flowchart intended for humans, but for software that would amount to "garbage in".

That's really the point.

My question included the caveat "without having that option programmed in".

That's only way it will happen.

How do you program a human to be depressed?

Do you mean what's required to make a person depressed? What determines that situation? Well, you can ensure that one of his parents was depressive. Ensure that his mother drank a lot while carrying him. Make sure he grows up in a social situation where cannabis use was common. Give him a taste for booze and some low self esteem. Make him somewhat paranoid and easy to anger. That'll do it. He'll have no choice in the matter.

You have the evidence. You know full well you freely make many, many choices every day. You just choose not to believe it. You also know other people choose.

I have repeatedly explained that the simple fact that we make decisions is not evidence of free will.

If someone steals money from you, I suspect you wouldn't say "Oh well, that was determined. He couldn't help doing that. No need to be upset about it."

Why wouldn't I be upset? Just because you can't do anything about something doesn't mean that you have no reaction to to it. I worked hard for my money now someone has taken it. Of course I'm upset. I don't want that to happen. I want to prevent it from happening. So how do we do that? Well, you make sure the antecedent conditions are such that it discourages people from having a preference for stealing things. Make sure there's a potential punishment severe enough to make them think it's a bad choice.

That's there's no free will doesn't mean that you wander through life shrugging your shoulders and thinking 'Well, there's nothing I can do about any thing.' You don't live life not being able to differentiate between good and bad. You still punish people for wrong doing as a deterrent.

And the guy that steals my money? I know that if I had grown up as him then I'd be in that exact same situation. There but for the grace of God as it were. I still get angry. I still want retribution. But I know that that is just a natural, inbuilt reaction. It serves no real purpose. So if the guy is genuinely remourceful and wants to change his life then I honestly wouldn't want him punished.

 

[Chesterton]

That's really the point.

That's only way it will happen.

A big problem arguing with you is that your position is only a statement of things after the fact. No matter what I do in life, whether sensible or ridiculous, you'll say it was destined to happen. It's as if a certain football team wins a match, and afterwards I say "I knew with absolute certainty that they were going to win." You can't argue against me, because what I've said is unfalsifiable, which is why determinism is unscientific. It's also bad philosophy for the reason stated earlier, i.e., you can't reason yourself into a belief in which reason played no part. According to you, you had to become a determinist regardless of anything and everything. Saying "I believe in determinism" is exactly like a Frenchman saying "before I was born, I believed that I should be born a Frenchman in France". It's incoherent nonsense.

Do you mean what's required to make a person depressed?

No, I meant how did the universe program humans to get depressed.

I have repeatedly explained that the simple fact that we make decisions is not evidence of free will.

Neither is it evidence that we don't have free will. Why do you and I and every human who's ever lived feel like we have free will?

Why wouldn't I be upset? Just because you can't do anything about something doesn't mean that you have no reaction to to it. I worked hard for my money now someone has taken it. Of course I'm upset. I don't want that to happen. I want to prevent it from happening. So how do we do that? Well, you make sure the antecedent conditions are such that it discourages people from having a preference for stealing things. Make sure there's a potential punishment severe enough to make them think it's a bad choice.

That's there's no free will doesn't mean that you wander through life shrugging your shoulders and thinking 'Well, there's nothing I can do about any thing.' You don't live life not being able to differentiate between good and bad. You still punish people for wrong doing as a deterrent.

According to your philosophy, there can be no such thing as wrongdoing. According to my philosophy, it would very immoral to punish a person for doing anything they could not help doing. Might as well punish people for being born with a certain hair color you don't like.

And the guy that steals my money? I know that if I had grown up as him then I'd be in that exact same situation. There but for the grace of God as it were. I still get angry. I still want retribution. But I know that that is just a natural, inbuilt reaction. It serves no real purpose. So if the guy is genuinely remourceful and wants to change his life then I honestly wouldn't want him punished.

Why does the universe program humans to get angry if it serves no real purpose?

 

[Bradskii]

A big problem arguing with you is that your position is only a statement of things after the fact. No matter what I do in life, whether sensible or ridiculous, you'll say it was destined to happen. It's as if a certain football team wins a match, and afterwards I say "I knew with absolute certainty that they were going to win."

No, you misunderstand the position. I can't say that I knew. That's not possible. But if we look at the facts of the matter after any given event we might be able to identify some of the conditions that determined the outcome. You do this all the time.

Do you know exactly where you'll be in a year's time? Of course not. And in a year's time you won't be able to say 'I knew with absolute certainty I'd be here'. There are simply too many variables. Effectively infinite. But there'd be a whole heap of reasons why you'd end up in a particular spot. Those reasons, the ones that you are aware of, determined it. How could that not be the case?

You can't predict an outcome. But post fact you can determine what led to it. And as I said, this is the case if free will exists or not. My point is that you cannot control these antecedent conditions, therefore free will doesn't exist.

No, I meant how did the universe program humans to get depressed.

If it's a usual reaction to an unwanted event then it's no different to feeling pain. The body is saying 'Avoid this situation'. If it's a medical condition then it's a glitch in the system like epilepsy or cancer.

Neither is it evidence that we don't have free will. Why do you and I and every human who's ever lived feel like we have free will?

It's evolutionary beneficial. And people think that making decisions is actually an example of it in action.

According to your philosophy, there can be no such thing as wrongdoing. According to my philosophy, it would very immoral to punish a person for doing anything they could not help doing. Might as well punish people for being born with a certain hair color you don't like.

Having brown hair doesn't affect anyone, whatever my preference. It causes no harm. But society would collapse if everyone just took what they wanted. Being within a group that you can trust is evolutionary beneficial. So those we can't trust must be excluded from the group - you lock them up when they steal from you thus protecting everyone. And this is the case whether the guy could help it or not. He may be mentally unstable, but you still need to be protected.

It also acts as a deterrent to be those who might have been thinking about doing the same.

Why does the universe program humans to get angry if it serves no real purpose?

It prompts retribution. It's one of the points that I keep bringing up: that retribution just for it's own sake serves no real purpose. It's well known that Norway's system of giving prisoners excellent accomodation and access to good food, gym equipment, leisure activities etc significantly reduce recidivism. But we can both imagine the spluttering of some who would object. 'It's not meant to be a holiday home! They are meant to be punished!'

 

[Ana the Ist]

Both of those choices to leave the room are never equal or 50/50,

Why not?

It's nice of you to state this claim...but telling me how you believe determinism works doesn't explain why there's no possibility of multiple choices fulfilling the same causal factor.

I'm not sure why you seem stuck on repeating how determinism works every time I ask you  why both doors aren't eequally possible? They both potentially fulfill the cause of exiting the room...so it's unclear why you think it has to be one and never could have been, or could be the other.

Can you answer that?

I submit that it is each person's history up to that point that makes them different, or never 50/50,

Can you give me an example of someone's history affecting the choice between door left and door right?

Then it could be 50/50 maybe, but not at all at any time immediately after that ever, because immediately at that point, or starting right immediately after that point, nothing is ever 50/50 for any human being

Why is nothing ever 50/50?

You're making it sound like not only is nothing ever 50/50....but everything is 100/0.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why wouldn't I be upset?

Because it was always going to happen and unavoidable.

Just because you can't do anything about something doesn't mean that you have no reaction to to it.

Typically our inability to control something is exactly what numbs our emotions to it. Look up "learned helplessness".

I worked hard for my money now someone has taken it.

Hard work or not....it was always going to be his money, you were simply holding it for him momentarily.

Of course I'm upset. I don't want that to happen.

Whatever you may want seems entirely irrelevant to the determinist.

I want to prevent it from happening.

If you're a determinist...you can't prevent something from happening.

So how do we do that? Well, you make sure the antecedent conditions are such that it discourages people from having a preference for stealing things. Make sure there's a potential punishment severe enough to make them think it's a bad choice.

You're talking as if making deliberate free will choices can alter outcomes.

That's there's no free will doesn't mean that you wander through life shrugging your shoulders and thinking 'Well, there's nothing I can do about any thing.'

Not only is there nothing you can do about anything....the whole idea of "you" as some distinct agent and not just a set of predetermined causes and effects is wrong.

You know...if you genuinely believe this stuff.

You don't live life not being able to differentiate between good and bad.

How would you differentiate?

It's not the thief's fault he robbed you anymore than it's your fault you were robbed.

What exactly would be the morally good or bad behaviors in that situation?

And the guy that steals my money? I know that if I had grown up as him then I'd be in that exact same situation.

Why would you assume that? He's not the same as you.

 

[Chesterton]

No, you misunderstand the position. I can't say that I knew. That's not possible. But if we look at the facts of the matter after any given event we might be able to identify some of the conditions that determined the outcome. You do this all the time.

Do you know exactly where you'll be in a year's time? Of course not. And in a year's time you won't be able to say 'I knew with absolute certainty I'd be here'. There are simply too many variables. Effectively infinite. But there'd be a whole heap of reasons why you'd end up in a particular spot. Those reasons, the ones that you are aware of, determined it. How could that not be the case?

You can't predict an outcome. But post fact you can determine what led to it. And as I said, this is the case if free will exists or not.

My point was just that determinism is unfalsifiable.

My point is that you cannot control these antecedent conditions, therefore free will doesn't exist.

That's a non sequitur. We can't control antecedent conditions, but, for example, we know of many people raised in horrible families in horrible conditions who grow up to be decent people. Conversely, we know of kids who grow up in the best possible conditions and turn out to be murderers.

If it's a usual reaction to an unwanted event then it's no different to feeling pain. The body is saying 'Avoid this situation'. If it's a medical condition then it's a glitch in the system like epilepsy or cancer.

So if I'm depressed because a loved one died of old age, my body is telling me to avoid that situation?

It's evolutionary beneficial. And people think that making decisions is actually an example of it in action.

How is it evolutionarily beneficial? Plants have thrived for a lot longer than humans and they probably don't feel they're freely choosing to engage in transpiration or photosynthesis. (Although I could be wrong about that.)

Having brown hair doesn't affect anyone, whatever my preference. It causes no harm. But society would collapse if everyone just took what they wanted. Being within a group that you can trust is evolutionary beneficial. So those we can't trust must be excluded from the group - you lock them up when they steal from you thus protecting everyone. And this is the case whether the guy could help it or not. He may be mentally unstable, but you still need to be protected.

It also acts as a deterrent to be those who might have been thinking about doing the same.

As an atheist I assume you think that humans are just another kind of animal among many others. If everyone just took what they wanted, society would not collapse. Actual animals take what they want. They take their prey of a different kind, and they take from each other. They will fight for food, and for mates. Yet animal society is intact.

It prompts retribution. It's one of the points that I keep bringing up: that retribution just for it's own sake serves no real purpose. It's well known that Norway's system of giving prisoners excellent accomodation and access to good food, gym equipment, leisure activities etc significantly reduce recidivism. But we can both imagine the spluttering of some who would object. 'It's not meant to be a holiday home! They are meant to be punished!'

The universe just likes retribution? For no reason?

 

[Bradskii]

My point was just that determinism is unfalsifiable.

Yes, it is falsifiable. Show me an event without a cause. It's really that simple.

That's a non sequitur. We can't control antecedent conditions, but, for example, we know of many people raised in horrible families in horrible conditions who grow up to be decent people. Conversely, we know of kids who grow up in the best possible conditions and turn out to be murderers.

If two people under the same conditions grow up with different characteristics then not everything was exactly the same. That's patently obvious. If someone is brought up in ideal circumstances but turns out bad then there was a reason for that happening. May be you could offer some and we could examine them.

So if I'm depressed because a loved one died of old age, my body is telling me to avoid that situation?

I'd say it's because you miss them. I'm not sure what that has to do with free will.

How is it evolutionarily beneficial? Plants have thrived for a lot longer than humans and they probably don't feel they're freely choosing to engage in transpiration or photosynthesis. (Although I could be wrong about that.)

Plants aren't social creatures. Empathy is important to those who are social. We need to know what others are thinking and what they are likely to decide to do. Working out all the possible conditions and trying to determine the outcome is too hard. There's a short cut. Assume that the other person is making a free will decision (just like we think we are) and base it on that. It's handy for retribution as well. He stole a loaf of bread? Well, that was his decision, so on his head be it. Hang him.

Do we want to continue like that?

As an atheist I assume you think that humans are just another kind of animal among many others. If everyone just took what they wanted, society would not collapse. Actual animals take what they want. They take their prey of a different kind, and they take from each other. They will fight for food, and for mates. Yet animal society is intact.

In some social animals there is a hierarchy. Chimps, lions, gorillas...you don't take the bosses food. And c'mon, if taking someone else's hard earned food, shelter, money was rife then society wouldn't exist.

The universe just likes retribution? For no reason?

Not the universe. The evolutionary process. Take out the freeloaders and life is easier. You already know this. If one guy in your group never buys a round then he stops getting invited to the pub. If he's found stealing from the group then the retribution might be a little more physical. This is so common it needs no further explanation.

 

[Bradskii]

How is it evolutionarily beneficial?

I'm currently reading a book on consciousness by Anil Seth - 'Being You'. And I literally just finished one chapter where he touched on free will and he concluded by saying the following. I thought it might be apropos:

'Einstein stated in a 1929 interview that because he didn’t believe in free will he took credit for nothing. It is also a mistake to call the experience of volition an illusion. These experiences are perceptual best guesses, as real as any other kind of conscious perception, whether of the world or of the self.

A conscious intention is as real as a visual experience of colour. Neither corresponds directly to any definite property of the world – there is no ‘real red’ or ‘real blue’ out there, just as there is no spooky free will in here – but they both contribute in important ways to guiding our behaviour, and both are constrained by prior beliefs and sensory data.

Whereas colour experiences construct features of the world around us, experiences of volition have the metaphysically subversive content that the ‘self’ has causal influence in the world. We project causal power into our experiences of volition in just the same way that we project redness into our perceptions of surfaces. Knowing that this projection is going on – to channel Wittgenstein one more time – both changes everything and leaves everything just the same.

Experiences of volition are not only real, they are indispensable to our survival. They are self-fulfilling perceptual inferences that bring about voluntary actions. Without these experiences, we would not be able to navigate the complex environments in which we humans thrive, nor would we be able to learn from previous voluntary actions in order to do better the next time.'

The Wittgenstein comment is true. Realising that there is no free will changes our perception of our place in the universe completely. But then...in a practical sense, hardly anything changes at all.

 

[Neogaia777]

Why not?

It's nice of you to state this claim...but telling me how you believe determinism works doesn't explain why there's no possibility of multiple choices fulfilling the same causal factor.

I'm not sure why you seem stuck on repeating how determinism works every time I ask you  why both doors aren't eequally possible? They both potentially fulfill the cause of exiting the room...so it's unclear why you think it has to be one and never could have been, or could be the other.

Can you answer that?

It is my belief that the causal influences/factors have total dominion, and I'll get to that in this next line immediately after this that I say to you, etc.

Can you give me an example of someone's history affecting the choice between door left and door right?

Why is nothing ever 50/50?

From the moment a person is first formed, they immediately have the influencing factor of their unique makeup throwing off that 50/50, and then their experiences after that also, all causing it not to be 50/50 after that ever again, etc, if even it ever was, etc. Or why do two different people choose two different doors? What you are suggesting is true randomness which doesn't really ever exist, etc. And that's what I mean about nothing ever being 50/50, etc. One person chooses one door, and another the other door because there were different causal influences/factors involved for each person that affected each person differently, etc. Otherwise they should both choose the same door in a situation like that probably, etc. Antecedent conditions automatically begin being formed from the moment that person is first formed changing anything from ever being 50/50 after that for them each individually, etc. And again, what you are suggesting is 100% complete/true randomness that doesn't really ever exist ever, and that's why they are not/cannot ever be 100% 50/50, etc. You are ingonring the fact that there are/already always have been influences involved that always affect/change/always affect/alter that always, etc.

You're making it sound like not only is nothing ever 50/50....but everything is 100/0.

That's exactly what I am trying to be getting around to saying or showing, etc. That this entire universe is just only one possibility, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I want to prevent it from happening.

@Ana the Ist

We've been over this already, but we can still prevent or try alter or change a thing from happening, or alter/affect/change/try to change something/anything in general at all, etc, because none of us knows all the destinct deep details of determinism, or knows what is supposed to be happening, or what is supposed to be (yet), and because we are a potential part of that process still from our perspective or point of view, etc.

Or to sum it up, there is still plenty we can do about everything from our perspective or point of view, etc.

And the guy that steals my money? I know that if I had grown up as him then I'd be in that exact same situation.

Even with the exact same experiences, you probably still wouldn't be the same as him, because you're a different person than him, and even with the exact same experiences as him, they are going to affect/program you differently, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I always found it interesting that God in the OT/YHWH, after Adam and Eve disobeyed/fell, that He would say to His people that He tried to make His chosen people after that, He would oftentimes say, when they disobeyed or fell short of His expectations, "Because you have done this or that thing, or have chosen this or that thing, here I am doing this or that to you, or will be bringing/allowing or letting this or that thing happen to you", etc. Also He would also sometimes say "For this reason", or "For this or that cause" is also something He would say or use a lot, etc.

It seems to me that, after the fall, He knew He would be subject to this kind of determinism sometimes as well, etc, and would have to punish His people, etc. In the hopes that they would change, or repent though, which is why, while I think YHWH had a lot of knowledge, but that He did not have always have all knowledge always, etc. Or IOW's He could predict a lot or most things, a lot or most of the time, but not all things all of the time always, knowing that even He now would sometimes be subject to this kind of determinism now, etc.

I also think He would say that to the people a lot of the time also to let them know that from His perspective or point of view at the time, that this was "their fault" also, and was why He was going to have to do this to them, or let or allow this to happen to them now, etc. I also maybe think that He was still a little bit upset after the fall, and maybe thought that from His perspective or point of view, none of this should be happening, and even that maybe sometimes, that He also just wasn't meant or designed for trying to manage or change this kind of world after the fall also, etc.

Psychohistory? Ever heard of it? It involves trying to predict the future behavior of people groups, based on previous behavior patterns/knowledge, etc, and it uses a lot of math, etc, but cannot do that totally or completely due to not being able to predict always the behaviors of all the individuals involved, etc. I think YHWH had a pretty good working knowledge on the level of psychohistory, but could not always predict it always due to all the unique individuals being involved. One individuals individual actions/choices could change it sometimes, affecting it or throwing it off, etc. In reality I think it is all deterministic, but just that it is just much, much simpler on the level of people groups, than it is on the level of every single individual involved, etc.

My other point is/was that we have to do the same thing. A person does this or that thing then there are consequences involved, etc. In the hopes that they will repent, but if they don't, then consequences still need to be involved, even if everyone's actions in doing so are always deterministic at that point always, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Even with the exact same experiences, you probably still wouldn't be the same as him, because you're a different person than him...

True. A hypothetical only. If you became the other person exactly then you always act as they would. There's nothing available to change that. Again, I can go back to the Boys From Brasil. Bringing up a clone of a person in very similar situations is almost doomed to fail from the outset.

You cannot step into the same river twice.

 

[Neogaia777]

True. A hypothetical only. If you became the other person exactly then you always act as they would. There's nothing available to change that.

Yep. And if you were the exact same person with the exact same experiences at every single step along the way and if you truly had free will then you should be able to choose/behave/act differently than them, etc. But I think everyone with even half a brain would have to agree you can't, etc. Which kind of completely disproves the notion or concept of free will in the favor of determinism really, etc. But some will still be unable to see that though, or why it does do that still though actually, etc.

Take Care.