Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

I'd like it if everyone kept their politics and alternative paradigms out of this. But being the Critical Realist that I am, I know that's not fully possible.

It's quite impossible if you keep bringing religion into the discussion. Just take it elsewhere - go start a thread on determinism and religion. Or free will and the soul. Maybe someone might be interested.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's quite impossible if you keep bringing religion into the discussion. Just take it elsewhere - go start a thread on determinism and religion. Or free will and the soul. Maybe someone might be interested.

What part of "not fully possible" are you having a difficult time comprehending?

You don't seem to understand the underlying problem here and as to why no one here (including you, whether you admit it to yourself or not) is able to fully separate out their most central ideals from their politics. This fusion is "determined," and while we can all learn to practice engagement with foreign or dissenting ideals from our own, the effort to discuss some topic in a thoroughly unbiased, so-called "Completely Objective and Neutral" way is a pipe dream.

Anyway, I really am finished saying what I'm going to say in this thread. Maybe we'll find something better to discuss in the future.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks. Time in composition matters, I have at most 15 minutes to complete this one...

It was this quote from you that I was thinking of (and replying to):

"I say this because his is not an agnostic outlook upon the world but an atheistic one, carried on with an association with organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation"


Especially the "not agnostic outlook .. but atheistic". It follows in parallel to many statements I have seen from believers that characterize "agnosticism" as a softer or less dogmatic form of "atheism". (We'll get to the FFRF part in a bit.)

1. I don't know what you mean by "mild existentialist".
2. The general topic is free will/determinism, the sub-topic was the injection of political motivation in to argumentation about said topic. I don't recall any discussions of religious texts.

I'm going to put this in the category of "so what?". (I've been aware of FFRF since the early 90s, but not of Dan Barker until after I found CF. )

I didn't say you were. What I'm concerned about and what you don't seem to have any backing for is the alleged political (or dogmatic) motivation for Sapolsky's determinism as a weapon against Christianity. (the whole focus of this sub-sub-thread)

I find it hard, especially after you tries to subsume all of science in to the "empire of philosophy". In contrast, the question of "atheism" is very narrow: "Do you believe in a god? If yes, you are an atheist, elsewise, you are not." That's all there is to it.

I oppose both.

Is it any better than his "Wager"?

I don't recall any Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Che stuff in this thread, or frankly anywhere on CF.

I see no need to distinguish a "methodological determinism" in science. The question of "determinism" here only matters to the notions of mind/free will, etc., that we are discussing on this thread.

The question of free will/determinism isn't politics if it is to be evaluated objectively. If the answer is that we can't make an objective determination and the only thing left is opinions formed from dogmas, then fine. I don't think we have reached that point yet.

Thanks. However sharp our arguments may become, I don't hold any ill feelings toward you. (Only a couple CF posters have garnered those....) My point was to emphasize that the my naturalism is the cause of my atheism and any leaning toward determinism I may have, rather than any other way 'round.

Seeing Han succumb to the force brings the pain that he might abandon his trusty blaster.

I gave you a thumbs up for offering a thoughtful post, but I think you missed, and misunderstood, some of my finer points.

Unfortunately, the timer for my alighting upon this particular thread just dinged............................

 

[Bradskii]

You don't seem to understand the underlying problem here and as to why no one here (including you, whether you admit it to yourself or not) is able to fully separate out their most central ideals from their politics.

I guess you just have to try harder.

 

[partinobodycular]

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

After giving this further thought, I'm becoming more and more convinced that free will and determinism are totally compatible.

Now we may disagree about exactly what constitutes free will, but I simply define it as the ability to make a choice which can't be predicted with 100% accuracy by factors that exist outside of the mind making that choice.

For example, I'm thinking of a number, I find it highly unlikely, that even given all of the information that exists outside of my mind, from the beginning of time until now, that you can tell me what that number is.

I accept the premise that my mind is the product of deterministic causes, but I reject the idea that that input has predetermined the output.

To me the external causes stop the instant that they enter my mind, and are thereafter completely internal to me, even if they're still deterministic. They're not external forces anymore... they're the thoughts, experiences, and biological components that make me... me. So the choices that they make are mine and mine alone.

The output is determined inside of my mind, not outside of my mind. So just as the number that I'm thinking of can't be predicted with 100% accuracy by anything outside of my mind, neither can any other choice that I make. Therefore my "mind" and its choices aren't predetermined by causes outside of itself.

 

[Bradskii]

After giving this further thought, I'm becoming more and more convinced that free will and determinism are totally compatible.

Now we may disagree about exactly what constitutes free will, but I simply define it as the ability to make a choice which can't be predicted with 100% accuracy by factors that exist outside of the mind making that choice.

Except that predictability and determinism are compatible.

To go back to the broken guitar string, there was no way that anyone could have predicted what I'd have for breakfast the following day if I break a string one evening. But it was most definitely one of the antecedent conditions that determined it.

For example, I'm thinking of a number, I find it highly unlikely, that even given all of the information that exists outside of my mind, from the beginning of time until now, that you can tell me what that number is.

It would be literally impossible to know what it would be if I asked you to name any number. It would generally be a random selection, so free will doesn't live there. But if there was a reason for selecting a number (required wage, number of children, the number of points a team will make), then there will be antecedent conditions that will determine it.

And some causes are intrinsic. Some extrinsic. Some start as one and become the other. But the decision is always made internally. Based on those ever-present antecedent conditions.

 

[partinobodycular]

Except that predictability and determinism are compatible.

But deterministic doesn't mean predictable. So as I said, you may be aware of absolutely every antecedent event throughout all of history, that still doesn't mean that a particular choice will be predictable, nor does it mean that it'll be random. It just means that you don't know what it's going to be.

Take the example of my thinking of a number. I'm not necessarily thinking of a truly random number, although it may seem random to you, and may be no more predictable than a random number would be, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a specific reason for choosing it. The problem is that all those antecedent events give you almost no clue as to what number I'm going to choose.

The problem lies in my differentiating external causes from internal causes, under the premise that the internal causes are part and parcel of my free will, and therefore I can limit your knowledge to only the external causes, and those external causes are insufficient to accurately predict my choices. Such that no amount of information about antecedent events will allow you to accurately predict what my choice of number is going to be.

As I see it, you've been tracing the line of causes right up to the point at which the choice is made. Disregarding the fact that you're watching my free will in action, and then arguing that it was therefore predictable. It was only predictable because you watched it happen. But if I deny you that access, forcing you to rely on only external causes, then your ability to predict my choices suddenly diminishes.

 

[Bradskii]

As I see it, you've been tracing the line of causes right up to the point at which the choice is made. Disregarding the fact that you're watching my free will in action, and then arguing that it was therefore predictable. It was only predictable because you watched it happen. But if I deny you that access, forcing you to rely on only external causes, then your ability to predict my choices suddenly diminishes.

Free will has absolutely nothing to do with predictability. Nothing at all. Just because you can't predict the future doesn't mean it's indeterminate.

Determinism doesn't prophesy a future event. It explains why it happened.

 

[partinobodycular]

Just because you can't predict the future doesn't mean it's indeterminate.

I never said that the future was indeterminate. In fact I said the exact opposite, that determinism and free will aren't incompatible.

I simply define it as the ability to make a choice which can't be predicted with 100% accuracy by factors that exist outside of the mind making that choice.

In other words, it's the mind that's deciding what number to think of, not the antecedent events. You simply cannot establish a connection between the antecedent events and which number I'm going to think of. If you could then you would be able to predict which number I'm going to choose... but you can't. Therefore my choice of number was made by my mind, and not by anything outside of it. Hence, I have free will.

 

[Bradskii]

I never said that the future was indeterminate. In fact I said the exact opposite, that determinism and free will aren't incompatible.



In other words, it's the mind that's deciding what number to think of, not the antecedent events. You simply cannot establish a connection between the antecedent events and which number I'm going to think of. If you could then you would be able to predict which number I'm going to choose... but you can't. Therefore my choice of number was made by my mind, and not by anything outside of it. Hence, I have free will.

If you choose a number at random, then that's not free will. Any non random choice that you make will be made for a reason. Those reasons are the antecedent conditions, whether they were internal (your mood etc) or external to you (the weather etc). If you think that that is not the case then give me an example of a non random decision that you made for no reason at all.

 

[christian-surfer]

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences. There has been an effectively infinite chain of events which has resulted in me sitting here writing this sentence. They have all led to this point. From the major events - I was born at a specific time and place, to the minor ones - it's raining today, to the seemingly inconsequential - I broke a string on my guitar last night.

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

You can rationalize that free will is an illusion but it’s beyond comprehension. Is the sky blue ? You can say that the sky is not really blue but it is not wrong to say that the sky is blue. So I can say that I have free will because the evidence of it is very strong and yet scripture has the concept of the elect or pre chosen.

The concept of maya in the east is that everything is like a dream , god produced the dream, god is the ultimate reality but the dream is still real in a sense just like if you had a dream it still did happen that you dreamed. There are variations to maya such as this world is an illusion or things are not quite what they seem

Some things are paradoxical

 

[partinobodycular]

Any non random choice that you make will be made for a reason. Those reasons are the antecedent conditions, whether they were internal (your mood etc) or external to you (the weather etc).

I totally agree that my choice will be made for a reason, and that those reasons are antecedent to the choice, but I'm differentiating between whether those reasons are born internally or externally. If it's impossible to determine what my choice will be via events external to me, then that choice must be internally generated. If it was internally generated then it was made by me because 'I am' the sum total of those internal causes.

They ARE me, and my nonrandom choices are a direct result of me.

If you think that that is not the case then give me an example of a non random decision that you made for no reason at all.

I can't give you one. But I'm not arguing for that. I'm simply arguing that the reasons are internal and not external. They're born out of causes which are ultimately under the dominion of things internal to me. And I don't care if they're still determined. They're determined by me and my moods, or fears, or desires, or whatever. Those are the things that ultimately constitute me, and you seem to be in agreement that those are the reasons for the things that I choose. Hence my choices are made by me.

 

[Bradskii]

You can rationalize that free will is an illusion...

Yes, you can.

...but it’s beyond comprehension.

No, it's easy to comprehend. But it's difficult to accept.

 

[christian-surfer]

Yes, you can.

No, it's easy to comprehend. But it's difficult to accept.

Thinking that everything is predetermined can’t be proven or has no practical or limited value. If everything is predetermined then why can’t you predict everything that will occur in the future? The appearance of free will is so strong that it has its own reality. You can not predict the future behavior of all others

Who is driving this world and everything that happens ? None other than the lord

Some would say thru prayer one attains true free will . It would seem as if karma is leading down a path of destruction but through prayer that apparently predetermined destiny was averted

 

[Bradskii]

I totally agree that my choice will be made for a reason, and that those reasons are antecedent to the choice, but I'm differentiating between whether those reasons are born internally or externally.

Either can be the reasons. Or a mixture.

If it's impossible to determine what my choice will be via events external to me, then that choice must be internally generated. If it was internally generated then it was made by me because 'I am' the sum total of those internal causes.

They ARE me, and my nonrandom choices are a direct result of me.

Nobody is arguing that you can't make choices. But every choice that you make will depend on antecedent conditions. Which will include internal states, such tiredness, anger, love, hunger etc. Maybe you had a bad day at the office. Maybe you got a raise. Maybe you haven't eaten all day. Maybe you grew up in a tough neighbourhood. Maybe your family was well off or maybe your mother was a single parent. Maybe you've had a couple of drinks. Maybe your testosterone levels are low.

There's a gazillion things that will determine what you decide.

I can't give you one.

Because there aren't any.

But I'm not arguing for that. I'm simply arguing that the reasons are internal and not external. They're born out of causes which are ultimately under the dominion of things internal to me. And I don't care if they're still determined. They're determined by me and my moods, or fears, or desires, or whatever.

And you have no control over them. You can't choose to desire something. You either want it or you don't. You can't choose to be in a good mood. You either are or you're not, depending on the circumstances, which are not under your control. You can't choose to not fear something. You can choose to overcome a fear but not to be fearless. You can't will yourself to not desire something.

Those are the things that ultimately constitute me, and you seem to be in agreement that those are the reasons for the things that I choose. Hence my choices are made by me.

No problem. You make the choices. Nobody else. But you've agreed that your choices are determined. So everything that you do is determined. You seem to be saying 'well, yeah...I always choose for a reason and all the reasons are determined, but...I still have free will.'

And you can't give me an example of any decision you've made that wasn't due to antecedent conditions.

 

[christian-surfer]

There dangerous concepts of predictive crime algorithms

https://cybernews.com/editorial/the-problem-with-predictive-policing-and-pre-crime-algorithms/

Jimi Hendrix grew up in object poverty, he had to beg for food and at times lived as a homeless person. Some of his siblings had serious health problems from malnutrition. His father gave up his brother for adoption. Perhaps a social worker or a psychologist might have assumed he could not succeed because circumstances lead to predictable outcomes

 

[Bradskii]

There dangerous concepts of predictive crime algorithms

https://cybernews.com/editorial/the-problem-with-predictive-policing-and-pre-crime-algorithms/

Jimi Hendrix grew up in object poverty, he had to beg for food and at times lived as a homeless person. Some of his siblings had serious health problems from malnutrition. His father gave up his brother for adoption. Perhaps a social worker or a psychologist might have assumed he could not succeed because circumstances lead to predictable outcomes

You can't predict what individuals will do. But show me a high ACE score and that will increase the problems that the kid will have later in life. On average. What does your ACE score mean?

 

[christian-surfer]

You can't predict what individuals will do. But show me a high ACE score and that will increase the problems that the kid will have later in life. On average. What does your ACE score mean?

People who are intelligent or well off are not always happy or compassionate to others. Whether they succeed in conventional ways, it’s possible but these other important questions remain. Some people may get hit by a car or die of sickness before they ever reach success, that too is part of what we can not predict. If anyone ever predicted such things perhaps he was some particular saint.

People believe in astrology, but if they think today is a dark day for them then that belief may hinder them. It’s also said that a vodo witch doctor may cast a spell on a person. That person believing that a spell has been cast then is open to suggestion of the mind, he then dies or falls ill. If you tell someone that they will fail that too may give them that idea

Perhaps we can assume technology will keep improving in some ways but it doesn’t mean it can’t be used for war, highly destructive purposes, oppressive controls, loss of privacy etc. We might believe in some far off idealistic world but what exactly will it look like or when it will happen seems very uncertain. It would seem as though it is up to humans, they have the ability but they also have the capability to fail in many ways. That would seem to be free will in some sense

 

[Bradskii]

People who are intelligent or well off are not always happy or compassionate to others. Whether they succeed in conventional ways, it’s possible but these other important questions remain. Some people may get hit by a car or die of sickness before they ever reach success, that too is part of what we can not predict. If anyone ever predicted such things perhaps he was some particular saint.

People believe in astrology, but if they think today is a dark day for them then that belief may hinder them. It’s also said that a vodo witch doctor may cast a spell on a person. That person believing that a spell has been cast then is open to suggestion of the mind, he then dies or falls ill. If you tell someone that they will fail that too may give them that idea

I'm not sure what point you are making in regard to free will...

 

[partinobodycular]

And you have no control over them. You can't choose to desire something. You either want it or you don't. You can't choose to be in a good mood. You either are or you're not, depending on the circumstances, which are not under your control. You can't choose to not fear something. You can choose to overcome a fear but not to be fearless. You can't will yourself to not desire something.

I totally agree. I'm the product of antecedent events. I've never said that I'm not. I'm an apathetic, socially dysfunctional, ignorant white male. None of which were of my own choosing. Likewise everything that I like or dislike, love or hate, believe or disbelieve, can be traced back to those antecedent events. But all that's saying is that this is how I came to be me, gee... what a surprise.

However, as previously stated, even if I laid out every one of those antecedent events for you, you still wouldn't be able to predict what number I'm thinking of. Nor would you be able to predict what my next sentence is going to be, because there's no direct link between those antecedent events and my choices, other than the input of this collective set of experiences that we all know and love as... me. I'm the chink in your deterministic framework. I take your predictable series of events and make it unpredictable. I'm self-aware chaos, still deterministic, but no longer predictable. I will do what I will do, and only I can say what that's going to be, and that's what makes it free will.