Determinism

[Avatar]

Sure, I definitely believe in free will. In fact, I believe in absolute free will.

Even though experience, habit and training may predispose us to some sort of reaction, we still and always have the ability to overcome these factors and strike off in a completely unfamiliar direction.

There is always room to maneuver, and always choices.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Well then, as opposed to trying to repeat my belief against free will... because I think it's coming out in a way that is suggesting something that I fundamentaly disagree with...
How can you allow for influence from past experiences and then say you have absolute free will? For example, lets say that EVERY SINGLE TIME you leave your house, you are attacked by rabid wombats. (If you're familiar with the game Magic: The Gathering, they can be enchanted wombats)
Every single time, and you've gone and tried to leave your house literally a hundred thousand times.

Can you say you have absolute free will to leave the house that 100,001st time? Or does conditioning prevent that decision?

Another example: The physical torture example. Do you think that it is possible for someone to resist all physical torture for information? Ad infinitum?
If I was captured, and I had some kind of vital information, and I was tortured for long enough, years or decades, I don't think that I would have the choice to withhold that information indefinately. At one point or another, I think I Would necesarily reach my breaking point.
Also, can a drug take away free will?

I thought this might help take the discussion in a different direction, because it seems to be slightly stagnating on repeated definitions... don't mean to offend.

[Avatar]

...How can you allow for influence from past experiences and then say you have absolute free will?

Past experience may predispose you to a certain course of action. It may encourage you to make a particular choice, but it doesn't force you into anything.

...For example, lets say that EVERY SINGLE TIME you leave your house, you are attacked by rabid wombats...and you've gone and tried to leave your house literally a hundred thousand times. Can you say you have absolute free will to leave the house that 100,001st time? Or does conditioning prevent that decision?

You have the option to leave. The choice exists, and you can take it if you want to. Whether you do or not, that's free will. The attacks might make you less likely to leave, but you still can.

...Another example: The physical torture example. Do you think that it is possible for someone to resist all physical torture for information? Ad infinitum? If I was captured, and I had some kind of vital information, and I was tortured for long enough, years or decades, I don't think that I would have the choice to withhold that information indefinately. At one point or another, I think I Would necesarily reach my breaking point.

This one is tougher. I doubt that anybody can hold out indefinitely against professional torture. (I assume it's a "perfect" situation? No way to kill yourself, bite off your own tongue, or anything like that?) Under those conditions, the excercise of free will would be almost impossible.

However, that is an extreme example of duress, and a situation deliberately designed to deprive you of your will. Unlikely to be encountered in everyday life, and although perhaps within the scope of the discussion, only a minor point in your favour.

...Also, can a drug take away free will?

Hmmm, also a tough one. I'll agree that to an extent, it can interfere with your ability to excercise free will, but again, it depends on several factors, not least what drug you're talking about. I can't speak for others, but personally, I've always maintained control over myself when under the influence, if that's what you mean. I've never taken anything that made me act in a way I would have deliberately chosen not to otherwise.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

...How can you allow for influence from past experiences and then say you have absolute free will?

Past experience may predispose you to a certain course of action. It may encourage you to make a particular choice, but it doesn't force you into anything.

You didn't answer the question... How can ABSOLUTE free will exist whilst you are benig influenced? Or does your defeinition of absolute free will account for the influence of experience? In which case it's not absolute.

[Fist and Faith]

Perhaps Avatar is saying that we have free will despite all influences. No matter what these influences are, we can reject or embrace whichever we want.

In fact, I think it could be said that there is no free will without the past experiences that influence us. What I mean is, how can you make a choice if you don't know what your choices are? If you don't experience things, you can't judge between them and choose one. What would be the point of flipping a coin to make every decision? That's not free will, that's chance. If you don't know what the consequences of your choice can be, why make one?

[Avatar]

Thanks Fist, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Our influences "bias" us toward a certain course of action. However, they don't force us to follow it.

They make it more likely, but they don't determine it. We can choose to act counter to the course suggested by experience/intuition/whatever.

Choices still get made, regardless of whether we understand the implications or not. Free will doesn't depend on knowing the outcome, only on a choice. Usually one as simple as "yes" or "no".

--A

[Nathan]

How can we have free will when the human body is just a collection of particles governed by the same physical laws that govern every other particle in the universe? Are we, for some reason, exempt from these physical laws? Is the human body greater than the sum of its parts in such a drastic way that it is allowed to ignore physics and do what the hell it likes?

Choice is simply a reaction to options, nothing more. Picking a choice is an illusion, every choice is simply a product of the reactants put into the choice. The laws of physics command that this is the case.
After all, a choice can't be made without experiences.

I really, truly can't understand how you can believe in free will whilst also believing that experience can affect choices. The two are mutually exclusive. You can either have free will or no free will. Not a mixture of both. What have you got except experiences to influence your choices?

[Avatar]

...Is the human body greater than the sum of its parts in such a drastic way...

Humans are definitely greater than the sum of their parts. But I'm not sure exactly how you're applying physics to this. We're talking about the mental process of making a choice. Gravity does not affect which choice is made, nor does entropy or the permanence of energy. No physical law governs my descision to turn left or right at an intersection.

...I really, truly can't understand how you can believe in free will whilst also believing that experience can affect choices. The two are mutually exclusive. You can either have free will or no free will. Not a mixture of both. What have you got except experiences to influence your choices?

You said the magic word yourself. Influence. Experience influences choices, it doesn't dictate them.

If, in your experience, every time you went to a pub you got drunk and into a fight, the next time you're wondering whether or not to go, the fact of past experiences will be a factor. You may say "Every time I go to the pub, I get into a fight." Does this mean you are prevented from going to the pub? No. You can still choose to go, even though experience suggests a possible negative result will occur. That is free will.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

While I don't think that you can rule out physical law in regards to your decision to turn left at the intersection, at the same time I don't think we have the knowledge of the human brain necessary for me to use science as an argument of free will.

Now we're coming to a definition problem... I think that reinforcement, and bias, are obvious breeches of total free will... but I'm coming to understand that you're going with the Sartre avenue of radical freedom...that when push comes to shove, at the absolute limit, you always have a choice.... I Still disagree, but is that what you're saying? I don't know.... some decisions are more subtle than that....you're saying that we are more than just a set of psychological stimuli and response, and I'm disagreeing with you, I think....so far... I'm not exactly set in stone with my determinism, I just haven't heard an option that sounds as possible or positive for me.

If I had to accept free will, for example, I would have to put blame back into my acceptable modes of thought, because I don't have any other way to get rid of it.

[Nathan]

Humans are definitely greater than the sum of their parts. But I'm not sure exactly how you're applying physics to this. We're talking about the mental process of making a choice. Gravity does not affect which choice is made, nor does entropy or the permanence of energy. No physical law governs my descision to turn left or right at an intersection.

The brain is just a collection of billions of nerve cells, when these cells work together they're able to do very complex things like make a choice, but they still obey the laws of physics while they do so.
Therefore, every choice is just a reaction in the brain. Since no reaction can happen without there first being an action then there's no way for a spontaneous action to happen. Therefore every action is a product of past action(s), and free will does not exist. It's only the illusion we experience as a result of the processes in our brain cells.

If, in your experience, every time you went to a pub you got drunk and into a fight, the next time you're wondering whether or not to go, the fact of past experiences will be a factor. You may say "Every time I go to the pub, I get into a fight." Does this mean you are prevented from going to the pub? No. You can still choose to go, even though experience suggests a possible negative result will occur. That is free will.

It might be free will, then again it might be your experience that not everything happens the same way every time. If you toss a coin 99 times and it comes up heads would your experience tell you that you should never bet on tails in a coin toss? You can't prove a rule by example.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

And on a side note, it's so excellent to be quoted in someone's sig. Woot!

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, congrats, Jem!


Nathan, do you have any explanation for a false sense of free will? How is this illusion accomplished? What is its purpose? Obviously, you don't feel laws of physics in operation when you make a decision that I would say is the result of free will. You feel free will like I do. But you say it is false. If you believe it is the result of random mutations and natural selection, what is the advantage that made this illusion so successful? And if you believe a creator gave us this illusion, what is its purpose?

Elsewhere, I listed things that showed we do NOT have free will. Skywier's response was excellent. What drive could be less a matter of free will than survival? Mental illness aside, we'll do most anything to survive. So how is it NOT free will when someone starves themself to death for a cause? The urge to eat is as powerful a drive in humans and animals as can be, yet some people deny it, knowing that they will die, because someone is being held as a political prisoner, or whatever reason. I can't imagine which laws of physics are responsible for that decision. What neural configuration makes one ignore the most basic urge - to eat - and the more general, overwhelming desire to stay alive?

[The Dreaming]

Well, I challenge anyone to acurately predict what I am going to do, so I can do something else. It's Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, knowledge precludes knowledge. The act of looking makes it unknowable.

I believe in free will because I must believe in free will. If I didn't, why would I do anything? I was just going to do it anyway. You see the problem? If I don't control my actions, I don't have responsibility anymore. Without responsibility, all morality and purpose collapses. I refuse to accept this.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

You have INCREDIBLE responsibility! When you remove the idea of free will, it changes absolutely nothing about human action. It seems to, it really does, but you are still you, your actions are still your own, your reasons are still your own.

The reason we have the illusion of free will is because we are inside our heads. We cannot have a perspective that looks at our brains from the outside, because we never -get- outside.

As far as the advantages of the illusion of free will, I don't think we developed the illusion, I think all animals have the illusion, and the process of assimilating reasons and coming to actions is the process that we feel as free will. As far as the specific advantages to the process, while I don't know them, I can point to the reality of the situation: We dominate all dominant species.

[Nathan]

Knowing that free will is an illusion doesn't change anything except your perspective; Actions still require responsibility because our society has developed the responsiblity system within the illusion.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Right, it's like a preexisting condition

Actually, I don't really feel that way.. on a more positive note, you are totally responsible for yourself still, and at the same time, not at all. If determinism were true, there would be no room for blame in humanity. There would be no first degree crime, because the obvious solution to someone doing wrong things would be because they don't know any better. Every action would be recognized as having a reason, no matter how demented.

I know it doesn't sound like a good thing, but it really is. It accounts for people becoming more of themselves, it allows us to move away from the negatives in our lives and towards the positives, if that is what we really want to do. We are the voice and body for our beliefs, our actions wholly become ourselves. It unifies the mind body problem.



But I'm still not set in stone on it. Just to be clear. Just trying to paint a positive picture.

[Fist and Faith]

As far as the advantages of the illusion of free will, I don't think we developed the illusion, I think all animals have the illusion, and the process of assimilating reasons and coming to actions is the process that we feel as free will. As far as the specific advantages to the process, while I don't know them, I can point to the reality of the situation: We dominate all dominant species.

It's an interesting thought, and, of course, nothing is provable either way. But I don't buy it. I've said that my love of Bach's music is not a choice. It doesn't feel like I have free will in the matter. After being kinda ho-hum about the Mozart my piano teachers had given me over the years, my jaw hit the floor when I first heard Bach. All of my favorites are like that - things I loved on first hearings. I'd say it's part of my brain's wiring. I can easily accept the idea that different neural configurations react differently to different types of music, or different foods, or whatever.

However, I have no reason to believe that the things that feel like free will are not. If, when I feel "in the mood" to listen to music, I do listen to something, did I truly have no choice but to listen? Was it an undeniable compulsion at that moment, brought on, perhaps, by what I'd eaten earlier (which I had no choice but to eat?), the weather outside, and a host of other factors combining within me? And if I listened to Bach, did I have to listen to him? Was I unable to choose Beethoven instead? Or the Beatles? And did I have no choice but to listen to the specific Bach recording that I "chose"? Was my musing over them a sham, my electro-chemical makeup at the time forcing me to go through the pretense of looking at several cd's, even forcing me to "consider" all the specific ones I did not listen to, all the while making me falsely believe I was making a decision?


Getting back to hunger strikes (or monks setting themselves on fire, and calmly burning to death), do you believe there is a brain structure, or particular neural setup, that decides each of our moral choices? It's easy enough to see the logic that, if I don't want to be killed, and nobody wants to be killed, we should all get together and make murder illegal, so maybe most people won't be trying to kill me. That kind of thing could certainly be caused by the self-preservation drive we all have. But Bobby Sands and Gandhi acted against this drive, knowingly and sanely, in the name of a "higher purpose." The survival of the species was not at stake. We could, I suppose, say that Sands may have been sacrificing himself for the sake of all people who shared his political views, thinking they'd all be killed if someone didn't do something that made the rest of the world take notice. Ants sacrifice themselves for their nest's survival, after all, and I don't think that's a choice borne of free will. But that's possibly stretching things. And Gandhi certainly didn't do his hunger strike because he thought there was any danger of every Indian, or every Hindu, being wiped out. He did it to protest the moral climate. Are our brains' wiring responsible for choices in what we normally call the highly subjective field of morality, and Gandhi's wiring forced him to, unlike almost anyone else, put his beliefs about such matters above his own survival?


On another matter, I'd like to hear more about how you think we have responsibility for our actions if we have no choice but to act as we do. I just tried to reconcile determinism and free will in one sense, and this seems like another. I'd like to understand what you mean. It seems strange to me that we should hold someone responsible for killing someone else if he had no choice but to kill. Of course, if we have no choice but to hold him responsible...

[Avatar]

Now we're coming to a definition problem... I think that reinforcement, and bias, are obvious breeches of total free will... but I'm coming to understand that you're going with the Sartre avenue of radical freedom...that when push comes to shove, at the absolute limit, you always have a choice.... I Still disagree, but is that what you're saying?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Regardless of all else, when it comes right down to it, you have the ability to make a choice. If someone puts a gun to your head, and says "If you scream, I'll shoot you", you still have the ability to scream.

Your will is able to over-ride any external stimuli, any existing knowledge, as with Fist's example of Gandhi.

The drive for survival can be over-ridden, otherwise we wouldn't have suicides. We are FREE. We choose.

Nathan seems to suggest that responsibility is an illusion as well. As I've said before, determinism seems too much like a cop-out. Like saying, "The devil made me do it", so it's all right, no matter what happened, it wasn't my fault. No one is made to do anything. Fist may not have had a choice regarding his preference Bach, but he has a choice in whether he listens to it or some other music.

As JemCheeta suggests, I think our primary problem lies in definition. I'm thinking about this, not in terms of the fact that everyone is going to die, or that kicking your toe will hurt, but in terms of excercising your will to do one thing or another.

Either of those things is equally possible, and equally easy to do. You choose which one will happen. Nobody else. If someone else has chosen it for you, then, as The Dreaming says, why bother? Whichever one you do was the one you were meant to do, the consequences become meaningless.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

To Fist: Excellent post! I'll try to explain myself (and I believe I am still in the realm of having an explanation)

As far as the idea of survival of the species goes, and motivations for the actions of people who go beyond it, I think you're putting limitations on the minds of humans that I did not. I don't believe that survival is the end-all be-all to human existence, and actually I think that in the wise person, it is most definately not.
In Ghandi's quest for self fulfillment, the steps of which he had been set on from birth (just to keep myself consistent) he came to believe that survival and material gain/security were not the primary goals of that journey. He believed in something beyond that, and for the good of his people and the world, made a decision. Just so in the minds of anyone that sacrifices themselves. They simply adhere to higher, or at least different id3als than surivival and multiplication.
As far as the brain being 'wired' in such a way, I think the brain is wired to come to conclusions based on experiencing life. If one's life experience causes one to believe in something beyond the mundane animal existence, that of survival of the fittest etc, then the brain will supply the obvious conclusion: To look beyond that existence, to something greater and more fulfilling, i.e. more likely to cause happiness. For Ghandi to be happy with himself, and true to his beliefs, it was necessary for him to do the things that he did.

I am concerned that people are looking at this as something that you are 'forced' to do, something like an 'undeniable urge'. That isn't the sense in which I mean determanism. I'm suggesting that the conclusion of your desire is inevitable, and that you will never act outside your desire. For example, if you are convinced that believing in free will lends itself to fulfillment moreso than believing in determanism, you will believe in free will. You are never 'forced' to do anything, you always do what you want.


In fact, you could take actions to try to prove that there is free will, by doing something TOTALLY out of the ordinary for you, in effect going against all other desires. All other desires, except for the desire to show free will.


As far as responsibility goes, that's a very abstract concept in my head, and I'm still trying to work it out. Don't attack me for the next section, this is me trying to find answers. Any help in this would be wonderful of course
Each of us will hold others responsible, in so far as they are their actions, and they are their desires. If someone desires to cause harm, that person needs to be reacted to in such a way that the harm is neutralized.... this responsibility, and this reality, will be taken into account by your mind when it decides whether or not to take action. You are responsible because you are HELD responsible, both by others, and by yourself. You choose responsibility based on its advantages. You are made responsible by the results of your actions....

It's a possibility anyway, and seems at face value to be coherent with the rest of my beliefs.... whatcha think?

[Nathan]

I am concerned that people are looking at this as something that you are 'forced' to do, something like an 'undeniable urge'. That isn't the sense in which I mean determanism. I'm suggesting that the conclusion of your desire is inevitable

I've been trying to say this all along, and nobody else seems to see it the same way... Glad there's someone at least who understands what I mean.