A question on the issue of free will

[emzie]

Determinism exists to the extend that I can confidently dismiss the idea of true free will. One's influences are clearly deterministic. If you choose to overcome a fear is largely deterministic.

Where determinism says choice A is made based on sequence Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,V and Z, any one of those points might not have been determined by prior points. They may have just been random chance.

Of course, if free will were not real is still not a reason to excuse bad behaviour. Just because a child molester had the initial seed of child molestation planted in him by another child molester doesn't excuse him, or even pardon him, from continuing the cycle. Ignore the double entendre.

But philosophy confuses me. So take this with a saltshaker of salt.

 

[Monsterzuma]

The funny thing about the issue is that the only alternative to a deterministic will is that of a random will. People usually propone views on the freedom of the will out of some sense that this gives rise to a more meaningful or aesthetic view of reality, but when you think about it, it would only give rise to absurdism.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Determinism exists to the extend that I can confidently dismiss the idea of true free will. One's influences are clearly deterministic. If you choose to overcome a fear is largely deterministic.

Where determinism says choice A is made based on sequence Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,V and Z, any one of those points might not have been determined by prior points. They may have just been random chance.

Of course, if free will were not real is still not a reason to excuse bad behaviour. Just because a child molester had the initial seed of child molestation planted in him by another child molester doesn't excuse him, or even pardon him, from continuing the cycle. Ignore the double entendre.

But philosophy confuses me. So take this with a saltshaker of salt.

Right. If you believe in determinism and can relate to cause/effect chains of events, than society's response to a child molestor, is just another cause and effect. Taking responsibility for your actions, is accepting that your actions have consequences and that those consequences are largely out of your control (as are your actions in a way).

If there is no choice, you are still going to feel the effects of your actions.

BTW: Is there a difference between "moral responsibility" and plain ol' "responsibility?"

 

[Yeekim]

What a cheap thing to say.

What if I said:
1) People who believe in Heaven are just afraid of dying.
2) Religious people are just sheep, believing any ol' thing their parents tell 'em to.
3) YEC's bend the facts to fit their preconceived world view
4) People deny determinism because they're just afraid/disturbed by the implications
5) People believe in hell so they can tell infidels/heathens where to go (to feel more righteous than thou)

I can go on and on. And I apologize if any of the above resemble anyone's own opinions, not based on a true story, and likeness is purely coincidental /disclaimer.

If you said that, I'd say you are generally ( ) correct.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I was watching a movie last night, (Aliens vs. Humans, intergalactic war, you know, the works) and this guy was thinking about signing up for the army. He asked an officer he knew, and the officer said "Make your own choice. That's the only real freedom any of us have." (Earth was one-world-gov, with fascist tendencies)

And it struck me, do you really even have a choice to make your own choice? We are products of our environment; if I, say, was bit by a horse through no fault or will of my own when I was 7 years old, and it scarred me for life, is it really a choice to say "no" when your friend wants you to try horseback riding later? Is that really your choice to make, or were you set along a predetermined path in your subconscious when you were bit at seven years old?

First of all, don't use Starship Troopers as any kind of guide to life. It's no guide to life and is also implausible. They send conventional forces against a planet, when they could've just carpet nuked it into oblivion.

I believe that we have choices that appear through opportunities, but that these choices are limited. We have intelligence and this enables us to make choices based on our options, even when it conflicts with current conditions. The struggle is more about realizing when opportunities arise, and making them happen when they are on the horizon.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Groundhog Day

In Groundhog Day, Andie McDowell's character consistently resists the advances of Bill Murray's character, even though Bill knows exactly how she will respond to any given pickup line. He just can't get past her Jerk Detector, other than by (eventually) ceasing to be a jerk. She magnificently carries out her choice not to get romantically involved with jerks, despite - or rather, because of - the complete determinism of her actions.

I agree. Calvinism is irresponsible and no one should succumb or be influenced by this dangerous heresy.

Said Calvin.

While these dispositions are largely dependent on factors "outside our own control" we posess choice relative to these dispositions.

That's an understatement. Causality is non-exclusive. The fact that B caused C is compatible (hey, there's that word!) with A's having also caused C. One obvious way for this to happen, is A causes B causes C.

So, we cause our actions via our dispositions, and other things cause our dispositions, and those causes have causes, etc.; all these statements are true and mutually consistent.

 

[Souron]

BTW: Is there a difference between "moral responsibility" and plain ol' "responsibility?"

Responsibility is sometimes just a synonym for cause. Moral responsibility, which is closely tied to legal responsibility, never is. It is possible to do something that has bad consequences, without being morally accountable.

 

[Narz]

Well in the movie, everyone does the exact same thing every single "day." Why would they do that, unless their actions/choices are based on their "yesterday" or initial conditions. I see them as a function of yesterday being put into motion "today." How could Bill Murray predict what everyone was going to do, if they are all free to do other things instead?

Oh ok, I see now. Is just a movie though.

Either I have free will, or I'm happy to pretend I have free will. It's not going to change how I live my life.

This is probably the best approach for mental health, IMO.

To make a personal choice is to act according to one's innate dispositions. While these dispositions are largely dependent on factors "outside our own control" we posess choice relative to these dispositions. We are "free" in as far as these dispositions are unobstructed in bringing themselves to expression through our actions.

Can you clarify that a bit?

 

[Monsterzuma]

That's an understatement. Causality is non-exclusive. The fact that B caused C is compatible (hey, there's that word!) with A's having also caused C. One obvious way for this to happen, is A causes B causes C.

So, we cause our actions via our dispositions, and other things cause our dispositions, and those causes have causes, etc.; all these statements are true and mutually consistent.

I agree with all of this. However, I think it is worth noting that one can only chance one's future dispositions through one's actions. The choice made at any single moment is affected by one's current dispositions only, which, relative to the current moment are entirely fated (for the moment, let's exclude time-travel).

Can you clarify that a bit?

First of all, the word "innate" should probably not be in there. Like AS mentioned, dispositions are subject to change. What I basically meant is that free will means little more than being able to choose to eat ice-cream (an action; choice) simply because you like ice-cream (a disposition; inclination) at that moment in time. Since the "you" in "your will" is a personality (~mental consitution) composed of dispositions, there is no need to trace back the steps that caused "you" to be what it is. This question lies outside the scope of the question of whether that "you" is free.

A wider scoped definition of free will seems to me to be difficult to defend.

Anyway, that's just the extent to which I have considered the problem from my limited position.

 

[cardgame]

my short conclusion: it doesn't even matter if we have free will or not, it's not going to (or shouldn't) change how anyone lives their life.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Determinism fixes our "for or against" position on this issue and there is no real debate. So if we assume for the moment that we can make a choice about which is true, then....

For the scientist an answer comes from evidence about what goes on in the physical mater of the brain and how that relates to some definition of the "mind".

For many others the answer comes from the rather simple clarity of going through life. It certainly appears that people make decisions and have choices about those decisions.

A third group who might be characterized as "religious" accept a non deterministic position because it is necessary to support particular religious beliefs. They might well say that the scientific approach will always be incomplete because of its reliance solely observation and measurement.

Everyone is pretty happy except the philosophers who struggle mightily to find a way through the morass to make their points.

Compatibilism Thoughtful, but hardly conclusive and most likely not the path to truth.

As a Compatibilist, I would say yes.

(But you knew that already)

I did! The combination of science and compatibilism just doesn't work for me. A big failing of it is that it assumes we now have an accurate view of how the bran/mind actually works. I suspect that the next 20-50 years we will overturn almost all of what we now believe to be true and the mystery will deepen.

Bozo said it best....

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I just repeat my basic statement I discussed to death in the determinism thread:
If our decisions have a truly and real-existing random factor, they are free. If they have none, they are just a result of an 100% not free equation.
For I don't believe in real randomness: Nope.

Yet, as being not some objective observer, but a subject within the system, we may very well pretend to have a free will anyway for it is better to bear and by its lacking little to gain.

 

[Narz]

I just repeat my basic statement I discussed to death in the determinism thread:
If our decisions have a truly and real-existing random factor, they are free. If they have none, they are just a result of an 100% not free equation.
For I don't believe in real randomness: Nope.

Yet, as being not some objective observer, but a subject within the system, we may very well pretend to have a free will anyway for it is better to bear and by its lacking little to gain.

On radiolab they were talking about even rat brains having some randomness inside them. I suppose it makes sense, being somewhat unpredictable would give one an evolutionary advantage. I imagine human brains have much more of this factor.

As others have said, the question is really not that important practically (since we can't know the answer for certain, at least not right now), even if we're mere biological robots it's better to believe we're not & constantly try to push our limits. Even if we're just biological machines there is still much untapped potential within our programs.

 

[Souron]

I did! The combination of science and compatibilism just doesn't work for me. A big failing of it is that it assumes we now have an accurate view of how the bran/mind actually works. I suspect that the next 20-50 years we will overturn almost all of what we now believe to be true and the mystery will deepen.

The anatomy of the brain doesn't matter too much. Psychology is kinda relevant, but it's no likely that 50 years from now we'll stop saying that people do things for a reason.

The discussion of compatibalism vs incompatibalism usually boils down to discussing the definition of free will, and if predictability should have any bearing on it's freedom.

 

[Souron]

I just repeat my basic statement I discussed to death in the determinism thread:
If our decisions have a truly and real-existing random factor, they are free. If they have none, they are just a result of an 100% not free equation.
For I don't believe in real randomness: Nope.

How does being less predictable make you own your decisions more free? On the contrary it's the decisions that reflect who we are more that are your own.

 

[PeteAtoms]

How does being less predictable make you own your decisions more free? On the contrary it's the decisions that reflect who we are more that are your own.

I think he may be using the term 'random' in a way that doesn't mean 'unpredictable.'
Personally, I agree with him, and don't believe in randomness. I do believe in subjective unpredictability though.

 

[kivanc]

nothing is predetermined. noone/nothing knows what i will do 5 minutes later, even I don't know it. some more details in my view;

Spoiler :

man decides everything he will do but with a slight point; he cannot change everything. there is a great ratio of chance/atmospheric factors/parameters. all the atmospheric factors combine and they become the "mother nature"

mother nature is in fact a kind of formula having many parameters.
brain is an illusion that the character wants to see the world. brain is full of numbers.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Since the "you" in "your will" is a personality (~mental consitution) composed of dispositions, there is no need to trace back the steps that caused "you" to be what it is. This question lies outside the scope of the question of whether that "you" is free.

Sounds like we can chalk up another vote for compatibilism

On radiolab they were talking about even rat brains having some randomness inside them. I suppose it makes sense, being somewhat unpredictable would give one an evolutionary advantage.

Bear in mind that "pseudo-random"ness is just as much an evolutionary advantage as real (quantum, as usually interpreted, e.g.) randomness. As long as an animal's actions are unpredictable in practice, its survival is enhanced.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The anatomy of the brain doesn't matter too much. Psychology is kinda relevant, but it's no likely that 50 years from now we'll stop saying that people do things for a reason.

The discussion of compatibalism vs incompatibalism usually boils down to discussing the definition of free will, and if predictability should have any bearing on it's freedom.

Wait wait wait. If the anatomy of the brain is not important to understanding free will or choice, then what is? What else is their beyond the way the brain works? Are you separating mind and brain, or thoughts and the brain?

Is it just a philosophical question?

 

[Souron]

Wait wait wait. If the anatomy of the brain is not important to understanding free will or choice, then what is? What else is their beyond the way the brain works? Are you separating mind and brain, or thoughts and the brain?

Is it just a philosophical question?

Well the point of contention between incompatibalism and compatibalism is the definition of free will. Definitions are purely abstract constructs, so yeah the question falls into the realm of philosophy. Now the function and behavior of the brain is still relevant, because the definition needs to be useful, but the structure of the brain is not.