Kevin's Watch

I'm reaching for an aspirin at the moment. Whether it is an exercise of my free will, or simply relenting to the determinism that this thread induces headaches from hard thinking, I can only say with certainty that my head hurts.

aliantha wrote:How do you know your decision wasn't pre-ordained?

Because I nearly put one in and changed my mind. I could have changed my mind about changing my mind, but I choose not to.

Hashi wrote:That being said, Free Will/making a choice happens first and then causality takes over--the consequenes of the choice that got made.

But causality can be the reason you made a particular choice in the first place too.

--A

Avatar wrote:

aliantha wrote:How do you know your decision wasn't pre-ordained?

Because I nearly put one in and changed my mind. I could have changed my mind about changing my mind, but I choose not to.

But maybe that part was pre-ordained too!

WF, that's the way I've always assumed determinism worked -- that the result of every "choice" was programmed in from the start. Which is how the determinism folks always seem to end up with (er, start out with?) a Creator; as you say, it's a lot of random stuff to program into a nanosecond.

aliantha wrote:WF, that's the way I've always assumed determinism worked -- that the result of every "choice" was programmed in from the start. Which is how the determinism folks always seem to end up with (er, start out with?) a Creator; as you say, it's a lot of random stuff to program into a nanosecond.

Into a singularity even.

I'd prefer to think that there is a degree of unpredictability in the universe. That sometimes cause-and-effect rolls the dice.

Which is another way of saying that information can be created.

And if information can be created ... free will becomes possible. Free will is also adding information to the cosmos.

Free will is also another face of unpredictability. That any persons choice cannot be predetermined solely from existing context. It can be strongly guided by context ... but not untimately controlled by it.

But saying free will is random would be going too far. It's unpredictable, but not random.

That is why I made the distinction between things that have consciousness and things that do not. Beings with consciousness have free will; things that do not have consciousness are subject only to determinism as defined by the laws of physics.

The archer may choose his target; the arrow has no choice but to arc through the air until it collides with the target.

wayfriend wrote:I'd prefer to think that there is a degree of unpredictability in the universe.

There is uncertainty in the universe. At the quantum level, when an event is about to happen every potential or possible outcome has a certain probability of happening; right up until something happens there is no way of telling what may happen. Only when the event actually happens does that particular result actualize and all other formerly-possible events have their probability of happening drop to exactly zero.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:I'm reaching for an aspirin at the moment. Whether it is an exercise of my free will, or simply relenting to the determinism that this thread induces headaches from hard thinking, I can only say with certainty that my head hurts.

I'm with DW! I was always a free-will(ist?), um, but there are some interesting thoughts on determinism, so I don't really have anything to add except I need some drugs (for my head of course....)

Put me in the Free Will catagory. I personally believe that my choices, while they may be limited by circumstance and probability, are mine to make. Mind you, if I choose to jump off a mega story building, my "Free Will" will become limited to what my mind is thinking as a plummet to the ground, and what my body does as it's falling, but my "Fate at that point becomes pretty will fixed and determinate" a

I reject the free will vs determinism dichotomy.

I believe we have free will. It is an observable function of our consciousness. The very fact that we are able to consciously, with sapience plan one course of action or another is proof enough, and fully adequate to amount to responsibility for actions taken (and all the philosophical branches that leads to, such as morality).

Determinism, I think, is an entirely separate issue. My reasoning leads me to the conclusion that the universe is likely deterministic. You may disagree. But I would argue that either way, this has no bearing on the existence of free will.

It is the conscious process of choice making--the directly observable mental faculties--that matter. Whether or not they are governed with infinite precision to particular action by antecedent states predetermined since the beginning of the universe* does not change the fact of choice and volition as inherent processes of the human mind.

*as a figure of speech, not to imply I believe in such a thing as the beginning of the universe.

So you believe that there is free will, but that human will is a complex but ultimately deterministic function?

Most people would say that's not free will. If your will is a deterministic function, then it is not free, as it is not free to choose anything except a single choice.

wayfriend wrote:So you believe that there is free will, but that human will is a complex but ultimately deterministic function?

Most people would say that's not free will. If your will is a deterministic function, then it is not free, as it is not free to choose anything except a single choice.

Fundamentally the point I am trying to make is that the directly observable processes of human volition are sufficient to meet the criteria for responsibility of action, and any further insight is of purely scientific interest.

Damn, so if determinism is true, then I finally understand why I can't seem to lose weight these days. It makes perfect sense. Well, somebody hand me some donuts and a soda.

wayfriend wrote:So you believe that there is free will, but that human will is a complex but ultimately deterministic function?

Most people would say that's not free will. If your will is a deterministic function, then it is not free, as it is not free to choose anything except a single choice.

Agree.
I may have said this, or something like it elsewhere, but: a pre-determined universe prohibits free will, utterly.
That, however, doesn't matter, because the universe is not this way...though it is not completely un-determined, either.
In any given event, there is a web of interacting/contextual forces, past and current. The outcome [and the possibility of predicting the outcome, therefore the determinism] is not certain until the possibilities are reduced to precisely 1.
But situations with only 1 possible outcome are exceedingly rare. There are a number of reasons why this is so, for me the most important being that the forces in themselves are not absolute in nature, they are interactive/relative/contextual...choose your prefered term.
Time, as part of the topic, is one of those "forces." ...in the universe as it is now [at least in SOME of the universe as it is now, and I don't even think of Time actually as a force so much as the result of other forces interacting, hence quotes]. Several have noted the apparent subjective/relativistic nature of time...but I'm saying something different: Hard to imagine observing the universe without being an observer [tree fall-sound problem], but Time is not only "different" in relative terms, it is different in objective terms [or as close to objective terms as it is possible to describe.] The same is true of all the other forces.
The undeterminable 'spaces' created by non-absolute forces are the spaces that allow consciousness, and choice, and free will.
[slightly off-topic...this is part of why I disagree with every school of thought that says life/consciousness was lucky to evolve, that it's so unlikely...I think the nature of the universe itself is ideal for such evolution...and not only ours, though I don't believe in alien visitors...they are/were/will be out there, but probably haven't been here. ][/i]

What basis do you have for these assertions?

Hieracrhy wrote:What basis do you have for these assertions?

Seriously? Assuming so...that's a LOT of ground to cover...but some is obvious.
The very definition of "determined" excludes "choice."
Time is obviously non-absolute, it doesn't merely "seem" to pass at different rates in gravity fields, it actually DOES so.
Electrical current in a wire is predictable, but only in aggregate: at every instant, some small portion is going the "wrong" way. We have equations/experiments to show that it is so, and even how much, but no way of knowing which parts, and no way of making it not so, even theoretically.
So I'm being a little flippant, and it's a lot more complicated.
But in all seriousness, determinism absolutely requires absolute, unchangeable things and forces.
So, show me one.

I'm not going to get into whether or not the universe is in fact determined, as although I do have my own opinions on this, I do not believe it is possible to come to a conclusive answer with the degree to which the science of physics has currently developed.

What I would like to focus on is the idea that determinism, if true, would exclude the possibility of free will.

Before we can continue, it is necessary to define terms.

I am using free will to mean the [sapient] ability to choose, and act based on that choice.

For this argument, I am assuming that the universe is determined.

To say that determined by definition excludes choice is true--when the actions of one entity are being determined by another. That, however, is not the scenario when it comes to free will and determinism.

Determinism is simply a causal chain of events, reaction leading to a specific and predictable reaction; a manifestation of fundamental laws of the universe.

A human has consciousness. They have sapience, and all the observable capacities of volition. A human's determined course of action is not determined despite these functions, it is determined because of them, by them, based on all the factors of their personality, as a product of the universe.

I cannot remove choice from my own choices any more than I can steal my own possessions. Causality, however precise, will not change that.

A determined universe does not remove our ability to conceptualise. It does not steal our minds and make our choices for us while we scurry about in the perceptual-only level. That is what it would take for determinism to exclude choice.

It is the conscious processes that make us free.

Ahhh...I see the distinction you are making. But there is a problem.

If you assume, for the sake of argument, as you said you are, that the universe is deterministic, then your consciousness, identity...everything you can call you...is, in fact NOT "you" in any sense at all. There is no "you" separate from the causal chain. You don't have any possessions to be stolen, there is no one for them to be stolen from. You don't have any choices, there is no one to choose.
There is no one to conceptualize, no mind to steal, no one perceiving, no being free.
In a determined universe, all of those things depend on postulating some portion of "us," of "consciousness" that is above/beyond/transcendant of the physical universe...yet somehow part of "us."
That leads to not one, but 2 completely unrelated sets of absolutes that must be: the absolutes in this realm..that determine the universe.. and the absolutes from the other realm that make us "someones" capable of "choice" despite the nature of our universe, not because of or by it's nature.

Vraith wrote:I may have said this, or something like it elsewhere, but: a pre-determined universe prohibits free will, utterly.

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just warning against this kind of thing in general. Absolutes are often not. I suspect there have been many utterlies in history that ended up being wrong. Can there be a pre-determined universe that does not prohibit free will? *shrug* I don't know. But it may be possible. I don't know nearly enough about universes, determinism, or free will to absolutely rule it out. I think there are some paradoxes out there? Is the wave/particle thing about light a valid example? Maybe some quantum stuff?

Someone said to me over the weekend that physicists are sort of stepping back from the idea of finding a Unified Field Theory, because there just may not be one. Dunno if that's true or not. But if it is, then they may be throwing in the towel over reconciling the whole wave/particle thing....

In general, I tend to be very suspicious of any sort of debate, like this one, that boils down to an either/or. And anyway, free will v. determinism only matters if you accept as a given that there's an all-powerful, all-knowing God out there somewhere who may or may not have already pulled your strings. As a Pagan who does *not* believe in the existence of such a God, well, to me, the whole argument is nonsensical.

Hieracrhy wrote:I am using free will to mean the ability to choose, and act based on that choice.

I would put it to you that this is a poorly formed premise.

A die can choose a number when thrown. That does not warrant the claim that it has free will.

Free will is the ability to choose by will alone. Therefore, it must be choice without constraint. Any constraint.

If you can only choose what a decision tree of cause and effect determine you must choose, then you are constrained to a single choice. This is true even if that decision tree is one that includes judgements and emotions in the sequences of causes and effects.

Being constrained to a single choice is not free will.

And when it comes to certain matters - for example, divine judgement - it matters utterly and completely whether you have actual free will vs the illusion of free will.

wayfriend wrote:
A die can choose a number when thrown. That does not warrant the claim that it has free will.

Perhaps we're using "choose" to mean different things...choice is a function of consciousness...I wouldn't say a die chooses...

Free will is the ability to choose by will alone.

Reminds me of Herbert..."It is by will alone that I set my mind in motion"[/quote]

Being constrained to a single choice is not free will.

As long as there is an alternative, you're not constrained to one option alone.

--A