Determinism

[Avatar]

I disagree (big surprise hey?)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that your experience ever forces you to make a particular choice.

It can affect the choice you make, or make you more likley to make one choice over another, but, as Iryssa points out, you still have the ability to select a different path.

You could still have made a choice of university with no knowledge of them. You might not have liked the outcome, but you still could have simply named a university.

You chose to indicate no preference. But you didn't have to. Your lack of "experience" doesn't prevent you from making a choice. It will definitley affect the value of that choice, but not the fact of choice itself.

However, I'm not sure that this comes under the heading of determinism. Perhaps we need to define what we mean by that first?

As I said, I was sort of looking at it from the perspective that it meant your choices are already made, even before you know you have a choice. I don't think that is true.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

If I had made a choice it could only have been instinct.

It can affect the choice you make, or make you more likley to make one choice over another, but, as Iryssa points out, you still have the ability to select a different path.

Then what else affects the choice you make? If it's not experience what is it?

[Brinn]

Any number of things up to and including random chance. What if you were to flip and coin and let the outcome of your choice be dependent upon the outcome of the coin flip. Would that be instinct? Experience?

[Iryssa]

*grin* flipping the coin...makes me think of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"...great movie.

Anyway...just wanted to say that I think the true freedom of "free will" lies in whether or not you could do something, not in whether or not you would do something.

[Avatar]

the true freedom of "free will" lies in whether or not you could do something, not in whether or not you would do something.

Thats pretty much what I think. There's ALWAYS a choice, even if it seems to be no choice at all.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

What if you were to flip and coin and let the outcome of your choice be dependent upon the outcome of the coin flip. Would that be instinct? Experience?

A bit of both and neither.
Is it free will though? Not a chance. Yes, you chose to toss the coin, but why? Experience told you that it was one way of making a choice and you thought it would be appropriate for this particular choice (because you've experienced other people using the method in similar situations, or you've experienced no other way to deal with a situation like this, so you arbitrarily toss a coin to free yourself from choosing wrongly).
Still, you don't have to do what the coin tells you, you could still choose differently. Why? Because experience tells you that coins aren't intelligent and will, 50% of the time pick the wrong choice.

It all comes down to experience.

Iryssa wrote:

the true freedom of "free will" lies in whether or not you could do something, not in whether or not you would do something.

Thats pretty much what I think. There's ALWAYS a choice, even if it seems to be no choice at all.

I think I'm using a different definition of free will.
Yours seems to mean the freedom of having choices, mine means the freedom of being able to pick more than one choice. It's impossible (obviously) to make two different mutually exclusive choices. Therefore one of them will always be impossible (you don't know which until you choose one). But how do you choose?
The only way you can choose is by

consider[ing] the ramifications of [the] action. [And telling], or at least assum[ing] with a fair degree of accuracy, what the probable outcome of [the] action is.

You can't consider the ramifications without experience in similar situations.
What I'm saying is that although you have choices, the one you choose is, ultimately, the one your experiences make you choose.
And since you can't control every experience you have, you can't control every choice you make.

[Avatar]

I think I'm using a different definition of free will.

Yeah, I think you're right on this one.

You can't consider the ramifications without experience in similar situations.
What I'm saying is that although you have choices, the one you choose is, ultimately, the one your experiences make you choose.
And since you can't control every experience you have, you can't control every choice you make.

I see what you're saying, and to a certain extent I agree with you. Your choices may well be based on prior experience, which, (theoretically) you can't control...Although I would say that while you can't control the experience itself, you can affect/control the way in which you experience it. i.e your attitude towards it.

However, I don't think you are made to choose it by virtue of your experiences. As Iryssa said, it's whether or not the possibility exists that you could make a choice other than the one that your experience dictates.

And even if we leave that aside, I don't think you are made to choose anything. You may be inclined to make, or your own knowledge may strongly suggest that you make, a particular choice on the basis of prior experience, but ultimately, you have the option, the merest possibility, however unlikely, of making a different choice.

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I think one problem with this is that what has happened, did happen, what is happening, is happening, and if we look back from the far future, what we did in the near future, did happen.
We never have any alternative perspective...like if we were able to see into alternate universes, we could comment on what we could have done, and what would have happened... but we can't.
Because we SEEM to live in a linear reality, with a history and a future (whether or not it's determined) that did happen and will happen, we can't give any physical evidence of free will... all examples will serve both sides of the argument.
For the Anti-Free will camp, I want to take that a step farther... While we could say that we control our responses and attitudes about our past, I don't think that's true. I think that our attitudes and reactions are also going to be determined by the subtle physics of the human soul.
Sure, we could make a different choice. Theoretically. But I don't think we do, I don't think it comes up.

[The Dreaming]

Without free will what are we? Animals with oversized brains that walk on two legs. I refuse to believe this. Free will is the center of ALL morality, religion and human society. Seeing all the vast expanse of human greatness and experience as an inevitable result of breeding and environment is, nay *must* be a lie. This is something I believe in STRONGLY. Without choice, do our actions have any meaning? Is it only birth and environment that seperates a Hitler from a Schindler?

True or not, I refuse to believe it. Life becomes such a lie under this viewpoint.

[Avatar]

I think that our attitudes and reactions are also going to be determined by the subtle physics of the human soul.
Sure, we could make a different choice. Theoretically. But I don't think we do, I don't think it comes up.

I disagree with you on this one. You seem to suggest that the "subtle physics of the soul" are already pre-determined. I tend to think that our reations are determined more by the mechanics of consciousness, or, if you will, the brain.

Yes, the way that we use it is determined by many social/psychological factors, but all of these factors are overcomeable. I have to go with The Dreaming here, although in a sense, environment is a major factor. But it's not the be-all and end-all. We can act counter to all expectations created by that birth and "conditioning".

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Well..as far as this goes, I think we (And plato) are being limited by our current understanding of the human brain. Which is ridiculously limited.... also a limited understanding of motivations, the subconscious, how we deal with others, reactions, etc.
I always wonder why psychology has progressed so slowly.....and beyond that, almost not at all in the average person. People don't seem to be making any better decisions on a person to person basis than anyone in the past.
That's another reason I tend to feel that the decision making process has its own set of natural physics...I think it should have gotten somehow better with the progression of society, and its morals, but it doesn't really appear to have.... of course, I have a very small perspective as a 21 year old from the midwest.

[Avatar]

We will always be limited by our understanding of the brain. I once read that if the brain were simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the slowness of the progress of psychology, is that it attempts to be a science. In other words, it attempts to offer a unified understanding of all peoples brains and mental processes, while in my opinion, a generalised view is unrealistic.

It is impossible for one theory to unify all the millions of variables that make up each person, and thus, psychology as a science is unable to reconcile itself with the individual, and i sprobably doomed to failure as a comprehensive and precise explanation for why any given person behaves the way that they do.

Perhaps LoreMaster will chime in here, as he has been studying the descision-making process itself, although not in terms of the physics thereof.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Generally when I say physics I mean 'how it works out' but that's probably a misuse.
I think that a generalized theory might be possible. After an intense period of individual study....the thing about the human mind is that emotions play a huge role in our decisions... like emotional responses might be the major factor in personal conditioning. I think to understand human psychology and decision making, a psychologist needs to be able to delve into the emotions of a patient at a more direct empathetic level.
Someone had told me that the advent of ecstacy was as a drug for therapy, with patients taking doses and doctors taking doses (both very small)
in order to reach some kind of a communicative harmony. Of course, the kid who told me that was a big fan of the drug, so I don't know about his accuracy.

[Avatar]

Although ecstacy has been used that way, (not sure about the doc's taking it, though it would be a good idea) it was originally manufactured as a slimming tablet, then used to keep troops alert during WWII (imagine taking a pill in the middle of a war!!) and finally it gained a therapeutic value, before people realised the recreational uses.

I definitely agree that emotional response is a major factor in the descision-making process, and until the "physics" of emotion are better defined (perhaps never) psychology will have great difficulty in even a "general" theory, let alone a unified one.

I think the premises that psychology works from are too narrow in their definition and application.

--Avatar

[Loredoctor]

I only have just found this thread and have to see this could be one of the most interesting threads in KW. I haven't had time to read all of it, but have read this page in detail.

I think the premises that psychology works from are too narrow in their definition and application.

No, the problem with most theories of psychology is that they don't tackle the real issue at hand. WHich is the brain. My thesis was an attempt to look at intelligence beyond just using standardised test, by looking at mental speed which is a reflection of neurological factors. Unfortunately, almost all psychologists (in research) fail to do that. They would rather invent constructs to explain psychological processes. Having said that:

I definitely agree that emotional response is a major factor in the descision-making process, and until the "physics" of emotion are better defined (perhaps never) psychology will have great difficulty in even a "general" theory, let alone a unified one.

The physics of emotion are 'understood'. While 'we' understand the parts of the brain 'responsible', 'we' don't know how the neural circuits create emotion. We know that certain homones produce emotional responses, and how various cognitive factors mediate this. Admittedly it is more complex, yet great steps have been taken to understand emotion.

It is impossible for one theory to unify all the millions of variables that make up each person, and thus, psychology as a science is unable to reconcile itself with the individual, and i sprobably doomed to failure as a comprehensive and precise explanation for why any given person behaves the way that they do.

I think that a generalized theory might be possible.

Every theory in science HAS to unify millions of variables. It's the process of experimental manipulation that teases out cause and effect, helps us see the big and the small. Yes, psychology has to deal with many many variables, but it may be possible to find the core factors that interact to make that complexity. The answer is simple: evolutionary psychology. Understand psychology that way and everything becomes easy to explain.

[Avatar]

...Yes, psychology has to deal with many many variables, but it may be possible to find the core factors that interact to make that complexity. The answer is simple: evolutionary psychology. Understand psychology that way and everything becomes easy to explain.

While I find the thought of psychology as an evolutionary process far more understandable, (and given that my own study of the subject has been entirely incidental) I have difficulty with that whole concept of core factors.

It presupposes that the same factors interact in everyone's brain to produce that complexity of responses. I feel that the "core factors" are more subjective than that, and thus will differ from person to person.

Afterall, it seems obvious that every person is driven by a different set of defining "characteristics" and even discovering those "characteristics" and the factors which produced them for one individual, does not necessarily imply that the same factors in another person will produce the same "characteristics. Even duplicating those factors in every degree possible to us will be unlikely to produce a person identical to the original.

Those factors themselves are divisable with so many other variables, that Psychology would be better served by creating a theory per patient, than a theory for all, (or even many) patients.

(Glad you found the thread )

--Avatar

[Loredoctor]

Those factors themselves are divisable with so many other variables, that Psychology would be better served by creating a theory per patient, than a theory for all, (or even many) patients.

Agreed.

[Avatar]

Well that's no fun LoreMaster.

How are we supposed to debate if you keep agreeing with me? This is not the LoreMaster that I know. Where is the incisive wit? The telling points? The things that I feel the need to disagree with, and yet which make perfect sense?

What type of psychologist are you anyway?

Say, you like Heinlein right? Have you read Revolt in 2100? What did they call it? Psychometrics? Do you think we'll ever see the development of psychology as a science as he describes it in that book?

--A

[Loredoctor]

I have only read two Heinlein books - both brilliant. I haven't heard of the one you mention.

As for the disagreeing part - well, look at it this way. I'm letting your guard down . . . wait until my wit cuts your aruments to shreds LOL

[Avatar]

Fair enough, I'll be waiting.

You should keep an eye out for it, it's basically set in an America which is a religious dictatorship, or theocracy, and it deals with the revolution against it.

Much mention is made of tailoring various communications in line with a "science" which can predict responses to any given stimuli (verbal in this case) based on mathematical formula's. He mentions "tools" such as emotional/connotational indices which allow the "writer" to gauge exactly the effect of his words.

It's a great idea, but one which I doubt will be truly effective for many many years, if ever. Again, we run into the problems of generalisation in terms of making such a "science" effective.

Take it Easy
--Avatar