Determinism

Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:37 pm

Well, I'm really curious about this, but if you're unsure, then I really don't have much to say. Except that I assume at one point or another, for reasons that seem to be unknown to you, you decided that it would be better for you to behave differently than you were. Distaste in onesself would be a very good condition for change in behaviour. I would think that distaste in onesself is a negative consequence of negative behavior

Post by **Nathan** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:52 pm

It still doesn't seem to either prove or suggest free will to me.

If you preferred to live that way then why aren't you living that way now? If there's no reason for it then how is it free will anyway? An arbitrary choice is the same as having someone else make the choice for you.

You also said that you believe that's the way you should live your life. Isn't that a good reason for you living your life that way? Seems like one to me.

As for the identical twins thing, their pasts are not identical, nor is their brain development, nor is their personality development. One is born before the other, one may be given more attention by the parents, one may suffer an illness the other does not etc.

Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:19 pm

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten to comment about that. Unless they are always in each others company, and never had any varied experience, they would have a different past to draw on. Also, you can't forget that they would experience life with each other as an experience...
side note, I always wondered what it would be like to have an identical twin. I hope somewhere along the wheel I'll get to have that experience

Post by **wayfriend** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:03 pm

This reply is needless. But it was predetermined by destiny that I write it. My apologies.

Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:08 pm

hehehehe
Don't apologize, I don't believe in responsibility or blame either

hehehehehe

Post by **Plissken** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:43 pm

I've been following this thread for awhile, but my understanding of this type of debate is limited: Is the basic idea here that if free will is informed by self-interest, it is no longer free?

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:16 am

JemCheeta wrote:Well, I'm really curious about this, but if you're unsure, then I really don't have much to say. Except that I assume at one point or another, for reasons that seem to be unknown to you, you decided that it would be better for you to behave differently than you were. Distaste in onesself would be a very good condition for change in behaviour.

Been thinking about this, and as things often do when you think about them, some of it becomes clearer to me. Not the actual reason, but the circumstances.

Thinking about it, I can seperate it into two independant sections, seperated from each other by some time. The first was when I decided to only ever be honest. Of course, having done so, I immediately took it to the unpleasant extreme of speaking my mind, no matter what. Of never pulling any punches, of excusing insults by the reasoning that they were honestly felt and thought. As Heinlein said, "Only a sadist or a scoundrel tell the bald truth at social occaisions."

All during this time, I was taking as much LSD as I could get my hands on, and it was giving me very interesting insights, not only into the workings of reality,

but into those of my own mind and personality.

Then I started to travel, and had the great good fortune to fall in with some people who, simply through their actions and philosophies, proved a good influence on me. The change they engendered wasn't immediate, (especially as these were the heights of my Cocaine years, which has very nasty effects on your personality) but within a year or so, I'd completely given up the coke, and perhaps started to think about the effects of my behaviour on others.

Now, having thought about this long and hard, I wonder if it was a question of balance. I tend toward a neutral alignment always, and perhaps it was a question of swinging the balance the other way. First, I went to the opposite extreme, in the mistaken impression that that was any better, and then slowly I reached some sort of equilibrium, which effectively maintains itself.

Nathan-- An "arbitrary" choice isn't the same as having one made for you. It simply means that both options have an equal weighting. The very fact that one was chosen, and not the other, demonstartes, to me, that there is free will. I could as easily have gone the other way, and stayed a horrible bastard. I chose not to.

It may be a good reason, but the other way has its advantages too. More advantages, in fact. It could be said that I deliberately chose a path that was not in my best interests, except intellectually. In all material senses, I'd be better off if I'd stayed the way I was. Certainly I would have lost nothing tangible.

I choose to act in contradiction with my desires. In contradiction to many of the ways that my experiences suggest will be of the greatest benefit to me. Every time I stand on the cusp of one action or another I experience the problems associated with free will.

--Avatar

Post by **wayfriend** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Just to drop in another non-sequiter: I'm reading Quicksilver at this moment, and, as it happens, this book explores the free will vs. determinism debate, as well as what it proposes is a third alternative.

Post by **Nathan** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:31 pm

I'd like to hear that third alternative Wayfriend.

Nathan-- An "arbitrary" choice isn't the same as having one made for you. It simply means that both options have an equal weighting. The very fact that one was chosen, and not the other, demonstartes, to me, that there is free will. I could as easily have gone the other way, and stayed a horrible bastard. I chose not to.

To me, an arbitrary decision is a decision made for no reason. If it was made for no reason then someone else may as well have made the decision for you. If you didn't make it for a reason then you might as well not have made it at all, or let someone else pick it for you. Just because they didn't doesn't mean that you have free will.

You didn't go the other way and remain a horrible bastard, and I'm very glad you didn't. I wouldn't get to have this conversation and many others if you had. But it still doesn't prove free will to me.

Post by **Avatar** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:37 am

Nathan wrote:You didn't go the other way and remain a horrible bastard, and I'm very glad you didn't. I wouldn't get to have this conversation and many others if you had. But it still doesn't prove free will to me.

Actually, we may well still have had these conversations, but they would have been very different.

If you were confronted with a choice in which either option was possible and equally "desireable", then choosing one option over the other is a perfect expression of free will. You are equally able to choose either direction. Nothing impels you along one path or another, so whatever your choice, the alternative was equally possible.

Aah well, having the ability to act counter to my inclinations (and doing so)proves it to me.

Perhaps we are both right. You have no free will, because you don't believe it, and are unable to perhaps accept your own control over your life/actions, and I have it, because I do believe it, and am unable to accept that anything controls me, apart from myself.

--Avatar

Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:06 pm

It could be said that I deliberately chose a path that was not in my best interests, except intellectually. In all material senses, I'd be better off if I'd stayed the way I was. Certainly I would have lost nothing tangible.

Ah! See, this is why I don't accept your arguments on this, in that passage right there. To me, the qualifiers of 'In all material senses', and 'I would have lost nothing tangible' and 'except intellectually' all weaken your argument. What sane person could argue that things don't matter if they're intellectual, and outside of the material world, and intangible? I think the intangibles have even greater weight than most material concerns! You especially, because you believe as I do that perceptions have a great effect on reality. Has altering your behaviour not also altered your perceptions? And thereby your reality?
What I think is that if you really thought that things would be better, that you would enjoy life more fully, and enjoy being Avatar even more, by being a total ass, then you'd do that. It sounds to me like you learned that you could get more out of life by not being the jerk that you used to be (I'm taking your word for it), and then changed yourself for the better. Of course I'm me and you're you, and I'm not an authority in the situation :) But may I ask, you said that intellectually you value your current set of ethics more... what aspects are more intellectually pleasing? Jus curious

Perhaps we are both right. You have no free will, because you don't believe it, and are unable to perhaps accept your own control over your life/actions, and I have it, because I do believe it, and am unable to accept that anything controls me, apart from myself.

Hehehehe... that's kind of a low blow :) I think either way, the answer would apply for all human beings. I still think that somewhere deep down in this conversation there is a grand misunderstanding going on, but I think it runs so deep that a simple clarification in terms won't sort it out.

Post by **Nathan** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:39 pm

Aah well, having the ability to act counter to my inclinations (and doing so)proves it to me.

How can it? Does the opposite also prove true? Someone that always acts according to their inclinations have no free will? And have you no inclination to disobey your first inclinations? You've never reconsidered something after first conceiving an idea or reaction?

We seem to be getting absolutely nowhere either way. We're going round in a spiral, getting wider and wider each time we bring something else in to try and prove our point.

I'm pretty sure everything's been covered now, save for providing more examples. It seems to me that nothing I say is going to change what you believe Avatar, and nothing you say (unless you've got something special you've been saving) is going to change what I think.
I don't see the point in continuing this discussion, I'm clear on what you think now, and it's not going to change. Hopefully you understand me too.

Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:54 pm

I would be inclined to agree with you, Nathan, except that this debate is the one that stays with me when I leave work, and I always check it first when I get online. Its become important to me that I try to resolve this (at least for myself) before I move on to another philosophical focus. Dunno why though. So if anyone still feels its worth continuing, please do!

Post by **Nathan** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:04 pm

except that this debate is the one that stays with me when I leave work, and I always check it first when I get online.

same here, but it's so frustrating to feel I'm getting nowhere and repeating myself for no reason.

I'd be glad to carry it on if I felt I wasn't just needlessly repeating myself.

edit: And that's not to say that I haven't gained anything from this, I have. By defending my viewpoint I've seen some weak points in it, and it's helped me to refine my idea of what I meant by determinism. What I was thinking of when I started the topic is definitely different to what I am thinking of now.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:30 am

There's no need to feel frustrated. You simply have to give up the need to make us believe what you believe. Then it's simply a fascinating exchange of thoughts and beliefs!

It seems to me that people have what I compare to mathematical axioms; truths that are simple, but absolute, and neither have nor need proof. Unlike math's axioms, however, people can have opposite truths. Some find it impossible to believe that our universe is uncreated. Regardless of precisely how and when it started, they cannot see any possibility that it was not an intentional act of creation. For them, the existence of the universe is absolute proof of a creator. Others don't see that any creator is needed, that the natural laws of reality allow for an uncaused universe, and that an uncaused creator is at least as unreasonable to accept as an uncaused universe. For them, the existence of the universe cannot be proof of a creator.

Avatar and I see various things come together into patterns that demonstrate free will. Nathan and Jem see the same things forming different patterns.

Creator or free will, nobody can prove anything. But that's ok. It's all good!

Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:23 pm

Yeah, I definately agree with you. No question about that.
But these are beliefs that I'm only now coming to develop. This is my formative time for my beliefs on free will and determinism. That's why I'm still interested, and feel like we still have things to talk about.
That's one of the reasons I like your posts, Fist. You consistently come at it from a new perspective. I like Avatar's posts too, because they challenge me most directly to justify what I say. In a polite and indirect fashion....actually, your posts do that too. I like Nathan's posts because they help me clarify my position, and it's nice that there's someone who sees things from a remarkably similar perspective (it's difficult for me to constantly be a loner on an issue. See: the idea of responsibility as an illusion)
I'm going to go back and look at some of the issues. Then I'll edit this message and add some more comments

So look out, there's editing a comin. Unless someone else posts. Then there's a new post coming! Whooo!
.... I'm kind of in a good mood this morning, this is my first post.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:20 am

JemCheeta wrote:(it's difficult for me to constantly be a loner on an issue. See: the idea of responsibility as an illusion)

Also the illusion that Av and I could "change our minds," and that Nathan could not feel frustrated by us.

JemCheeta wrote:I'm going to go back and look at some of the issues. Then I'll edit this message and add some more comments So look out, there's editing a comin. Unless someone else posts. Then there's a new post coming! Whooo!

Hope I didn't ruin your plans.

JemCheeta wrote:.... I'm kind of in a good mood this morning, this is my first post.

I can definitely hear a bounce in your step!

Anyway, as many here can attest, I often continue conversations loooong past the point when there's any reason to. So, by all means, if you have anything to say or ask, I'm all ears. (hmm, I suppose I'm all eyes and hands)

Post by **wayfriend** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:29 am

In another forum, IVB wrote:If your history is mapped out you have no free will. Your fate is sealed. You just do not know it.

One might ask the following question: if the future is mapped out, but you cannot see it or sense it in any way, you cannot discern it or obtain any information about it, and it doesn't affect you or alter in any way you or your world: how is your will not free?

Where are the chains that bind you?

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:45 am

I don't see how ignorance of how your chains means they aren't there.

Of course, if that's the way it really is, and I simply don't perceive my chains, I can still be happy. (Even though that happiness is not under my control either. heh)

Post by **Nathan** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:13 pm

if the future is mapped out, but you cannot see it or sense it in any way

The future isn't mapped out. To be mapped out it would require someone to do the mapping.

Where are the chains that bind you?

You are the chains that bind you.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Determinism