Let's redo a classic: Freewill vs Determinism

[CalicoSam]

I'm sure Bluelight P&S has already done the topic many times in many ways and also sure the topic has never been concluded.

I believe we are mostly determined. Mostly our choices are not choices but ingrained responses or reflexes that can feel like choices. I do though think sometimes we are in a perfect situation where we understand the constraints from our past and heredity, somewhat understand our psychological predilections and pressures, and we have somewhat real choices available. Somewhat choices, we didn't choose most of our life situation. Most of our ideas also came from other sources, we chose to filter, but our filter had forces beyond our choice as well.

The concept of free will seems like a comic book character to me. Exciting to some extent, but definitely not bound by the same reality I'm dealing with.

For me its a Santa Claus situation. I want to believe but reality keeps piling up against what I want to believe.

Make me believe in freewill again!

 

[Foreigner]

No problem with recreating the same topic. It gives newcomers a chance to take part, and allows others have a chance to re-evaluate their beliefs.

Most people operate on an instinctual level so in that sense they will experience biological determinism running their lives.

On the free will level, you can do whatever you want but you'll be confronted by the same set of lessons that you're here to learn no matter where you go or what you do. In other words you can do what you want but your consciousness is still at the same point on the evolutionary ladder.

If you can accomplish all your inner work then ideally your freedom becomes fully realized and embodied.

Those are my understandings.

 

[L2R]

one day i hope to achieve a sliver of free will, and i am determined enough to see this hope through.

in my current point of view, free will is found in the unconscious, away from thought and emotion, which are both subject entirely to genes, hormones and environmental factors. when you meditate, dance, create, or anything else that shuts your mind up momentarily, you are able to find a clarity of being from which free will exists. that thing is where epiphany comes from. that is where originality comes from.

and speaking of originality, i think this is the root of the immaculate conception (which predates the jesus story) comes from. it is the idea of a thing to come from nothing. an original thought is the ultimate immaculate conception. it is your one and only true spirit. it is your divinity (namaste). everything else is the magical but mechanical mud of the physical universe.

 

[iridescentblack]

I think Foreigner and L2R nailed. I don't really have anything to put forth on the subject of debate. I just have kind of a rhetorical question.

If you speak of free will and determinism, free will implies that I had a choice in choosing who and what I would incarnate as when I came to this planet. If that's the case, did I choose this form/soul/meat suit because no one else would (Was it too hard or dull of a life/lives)?- Was it the last option ("I got scraps")?

 

[Foreigner]

^ Yeah, there's the point of view that everything in life happens for a reason, and we've pre-created this lesson plan, down to every last shitty detail. Like if I get hit by a car tomorrow, it was "meant to be" and part of the plan. I can't really explain why I feel that's incorrect on a logical level, it's more intuitive. Like in all my studies of the different astrological systems, it does seem to make sense that people are born with certain configurations beyond mere family genetics and nature/nurture, beyond any selection bias. At the same time things can go wrong, there are accidents, there are mishaps, and chaos is always a factor. The "workshop", as it were, is not foolproof. We're still in the wild, in an untamed reality, such as it is.

And "reality" is what has come into your accepted frame of awareness. If you aren't aware of something then it's not yet realized, and you're more likely to reject it. But the rejection doesn't have to do with lack of experience, rather attachments to values. Someone with no attachments can hypothetically accept anything, any situation, because it's all just independently arising and dissolving of its own accord. This is the basis for wars on our planet. People are upset that other people don't believe in their reality, so they argue with reality and other people. Really they are just arguing with themselves and misguidedly blaming an outside object. You have unlimited free will within your accepted reality. Whatever limits you is self-imposed, even if you're not aware you're imposing it.

Through practice I've learned that the experience of emptiness, living from present awareness, and ditching all the inner crap opens up reality in such a way that less and less is unacceptable. Anything that happens which seems unbelievable is merely pointing you to your own constraints. There is less desire to argue with what's happening. "It simply is", without a story. And it's not a forced state, it's actually the ground state of all of us. We're all the same. It seems that this is what freedom looks like. The irony is that you are always this free agent, because present awareness never leaves. It's the ground state. It's just overlayed with stories and attachments which create the illusion that there is no choice.

This is all a very lengthy way of saying that maybe the aspects of our life which trap us into attachments and choice are actually there to point us to a freedom we already possess. We're born as close to pure consciousness as you can get, then we get layers and layers of stuff added, we run around relatively confused between life and death, then we return to pure awareness again. Either the muck that takes place in between has a point or it doesn't, but the outcome is the same.

 

[belligerent drunk]

There was a similar discussion in the NPD section that I recommend taking a look at. My opinion in short:

Since our bodies including the brain run on chemical processes, then what happens to us and within us is subject to laws of chemistry, which themselves are a result of laws of physics. I think it is not correct to assume that everything is predetermined (as in something that will happen in the future is already set in stone) because on quantum level deterministic principles don't apply - there's a degree of uncertainty in every outcome, it's a game of probabilities. So because we're just a continuous cascade of chemical reactions, we can't have free will. Everything that happens within us abides by certain rules and there's no possibility to choose one outcome or the other, not for us anyway.

 

[Foreigner]

There was a similar discussion in the NPD section that I recommend taking a look at. My opinion in short:

Since our bodies including the brain run on chemical processes, then what happens to us and within us is subject to laws of chemistry, which themselves are a result of laws of physics. I think it is not correct to assume that everything is predetermined (as in something that will happen in the future is already set in stone) because on quantum level deterministic principles don't apply - there's a degree of uncertainty in every outcome, it's a game of probabilities. So because we're just a continuous cascade of chemical reactions, we can't have free will. Everything that happens within us abides by certain rules and there's no possibility to choose one outcome or the other, not for us anyway.

Then how do you explain diversity and variation across millions of meat sacks that are all the same chemical reactions, more or less?

Just wondering how anyone can assert we are nothing more than our scientific components when science does not know what consciousness is.

I would argue that if your state of consciousness is one that only deals in scientific terms then that's all you'll see. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Then how do you explain diversity and variation across millions of meat sacks that are all the same chemical reactions, more or less?

Entropy. Plus external factors (like radiation) and the way most organisms reproduce. Mutations of all kinds happen all the time, and even our reproduction involves some alterations in the genetic makeup of the child compared to its parents. The latter is just needed for evolution, otherwise we'd all been dead meat sacks!

You're right, we know close to nothing about consciousness, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily more to it than what I said. I'll take my words back as soon as there's reasonable proof to the contrary, but until then I see no logical reason to believe that humans (or other organisms for that matter) are more than a sum of its parts, so to speak.

What I mean by that is, is there a reason to believe that laws of nature apply differently on different scales? So on quantum scale, there's no consciousness, everything just behaves according to simple laws of physics, and then at some higher level emerges a soul or whatnot? At what level does that happen? Do proteins have souls? Well, do their complexes have souls? Do cells have souls? If humans have souls, then surely there must be some kind of line beyond which there's no soul. Also, where's the line for different organisms? Do bacteria have consciousness? What about raccoons? Insects?

The beautiful thing about scientific approach is that not only does it make sense and offer a holistic approach/explanation, but its principles are based on reproducible, peer-reviewed observations. And basically it does offer a simplistic explanation for many things, you may not like it, but who says you should? I think it is a matter of belief, so you're free to believe what makes you comfortable. I can see why people tend to come up with all kinds of beautifully sounding and appealing explanations for things that are based on their feelings or subjective experiences, and I guess there's nothing wrong with that. If it gives you a peace of mind and motivation to get out of bed in the morning to think that our lives have purpose or we have free will, godspeed!

 

[Brendan12]

As a method of passage..we relate to our past actions perfectly in a determined way..which is to say that the past leads inexorable to the present..and from there the future is only an extension of the present moment..but is regarded as a place where plans become real and formidable..in the highest logic the reason is true..that we are determined to be here..and we are determining our actions..but it is with a price to say that we determined our actions from a past place..? Probably not..for we are always here in this eternal moment..and though we cant act in a way that is not with existence itself..which is to say that we do things and have things to do..and meet people etc..though what we do with them...and what we do with our thoughts for example..is up to us..though we will likely have to do something that fits in with existence in some way or another..so we are free to act...in general..which means we are free..but also bound by the common laws of physics..and existence in general..so that we are 69% contained..and about 33% free...in either course the recognition medium proves itself to be valid the whole time..we are feeling of as Freewill..and our actions stem from free willed action..but we will always be perfectly connected to the past and future..in a bondage or chains of Mephistopheles..!

 

[iridescentblack]

I have tried to live a life of free will, but years ago I payed a small fee for a fortune teller to read my palms. Strangely enough, a lot of the things she told me have come true... and she was very specific about a few of them.
But for many years after that I tried to move on and create my own destiny, or live a life that was free of post-determinism. When I thought that I had escaped from it, two more points that the fortune teller had given me had come true, almost at the same time.

 

[Foreigner]

You're right, we know close to nothing about consciousness, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily more to it than what I said. I'll take my words back as soon as there's reasonable proof to the contrary, but until then I see no logical reason to believe that humans (or other organisms for that matter) are more than a sum of its parts, so to speak.

So you admit on the one hand that we don't know much about consciousness but then go on to say that the theory you believe in is the best fit -- just like everyone else is doing.

What I mean by that is, is there a reason to believe that laws of nature apply differently on different scales? So on quantum scale, there's no consciousness, everything just behaves according to simple laws of physics, and then at some higher level emerges a soul or whatnot? At what level does that happen? Do proteins have souls? Well, do their complexes have souls? Do cells have souls? If humans have souls, then surely there must be some kind of line beyond which there's no soul. Also, where's the line for different organisms? Do bacteria have consciousness? What about raccoons? Insects?

Who's talking about souls? I wasn't. I'm talking about consciousness.

Who's to say that the quantum level isn't conscious? Who's to say that every molecule in the universe is or isn't conscious? What is consciousness?

Who or what is asking the question?

The beautiful thing about scientific approach is that not only does it make sense and offer a holistic approach/explanation, but its principles are based on reproducible, peer-reviewed observations. And basically it does offer a simplistic explanation for many things, you may not like it, but who says you should? I think it is a matter of belief, so you're free to believe what makes you comfortable. I can see why people tend to come up with all kinds of beautifully sounding and appealing explanations for things that are based on their feelings or subjective experiences, and I guess there's nothing wrong with that. If it gives you a peace of mind and motivation to get out of bed in the morning to think that our lives have purpose or we have free will, godspeed!

It's not about liking or disliking science. You can't just presume that because someone has a different understanding than you that they're in some kind of smoke-and-mirrors self-denial. That's hubris. It's about the obvious inadequacies and holes in its theoretical framework and existential assertions about the basis of reality. There's plenty of denial happening in the scientific community, on many levels, regarding many subjects, by virtue of it being a purely human system. Subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. I'm not interested in peer-reviewed reality, I want answers. Science doesn't provide all the answers I seek, period. Anyway, I'm not going to get into another debate where I try tirelessly to point out the limitations of science. If you believe science is the be all and end all, and it gives you peace of mind and motivation to get out of bed in the morning, then godspeed.

 

[belligerent drunk]

So you admit on the one hand that we don't know much about consciousness but then go on to say that the theory you believe in is the best fit -- just like everyone else is doing.

My point is that the scientific approach, as much as we know about the quantum world, does not necessarily contradict what happens in the macro world, to my knowledge. There may be some discrepancies, but nothing that warrants the dismissal of said explanations/hypotheses. Now you may say that it's just as good or maybe even worse than other proposed explanations, that are pseudoscientific or worse, which offer a better explanation. Here's the thing I wanted to stress - I believe in the word of science because it is based on real life observations, something that can be observed by (almost) anyone, reproduced and its theories undergo rigorous testing and peer-review. Other "disciplines" of science, aka pseudoscience, are not. Hence the pseudo-; if they were, it would be science.

Who's talking about souls? I wasn't. I'm talking about consciousness.

Who's to say that the quantum level isn't conscious? Who's to say that every molecule in the universe is or isn't conscious? What is consciousness?

Who or what is asking the question?

Soul, consciousness, whatever - not much difference in this context. So let's continue your line of thought. Who's to say that quarks aren't cousins of the flying spaghetti monster? Who's to say that weak force is not mediated by pink fairies? To ask those questions is a warranted degree of curiosity, because it is true that often those who make breakthroughs in science ask questions that may seem retarded to ordinary people. But to believe such things without a shred of evidence to support them is crossing the line into intellectual laziness.

There's no single object called "car". A car is a set of details and whatnot that put together correctly make it a useful and working piece of machinery. But those individual details aren't cars. If you catch my drift, then you will see that your line of reasoning just doesn't make much sense. Dirt is composed of the same elementary particles as us, so it has consciousness too? Or the whole universe is one big conscious being? That's too far-fetched, I'm sorry.

It's not about liking or disliking science. You can't just presume that because someone has a different understanding than you that they're in some kind of smoke-and-mirrors self-denial. That's hubris. It's about the obvious inadequacies and holes in its theoretical framework and existential assertions about the basis of reality. There's plenty of denial happening in the scientific community, on many levels, regarding many subjects, by virtue of it being a purely human system. Subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. I'm not interested in peer-reviewed reality, I want answers. Science doesn't provide all the answers I seek, period. Anyway, I'm not going to get into another debate where I try tirelessly to point out the limitations of science. If you believe science is the be all and end all, and it gives you peace of mind and motivation to get out of bed in the morning, then godspeed.

I see where you're coming from and I guess the only thing we can do is agree to disagree. If you seek answers that are not really based on hard facts, but have a more "spiritual" aspect to them, it's your freedom to do so. One thing I want to say about science is that it's not a religion or some sort of set of beliefs. You missed my point. I'm not saying that science is omnipotent and is the absolute truth, and has no limitations. It is limited by the fact that we're biological organisms and thus subjective observers. But that cannot be used as an argument against it!

It's not about liking or disliking science. You can't just presume that because someone has a different understanding than you that they're in some kind of smoke-and-mirrors self-denial. That's hubris.

No it's not, because that's not what I said. I didn't say that anyone who believes something different than me is in denial or is dumb. No, those who dismiss facts and observable reality are in self-denial. I believe in some aspects of supernatural and I have seen a thing or two, but I do not let that get in the way of seeing things for what they are. We're animals with an oversized brain, after all, and you can't forget that. We've always tried to explain things and when we can't produce a reasonable scientific explanation, we resort to coming up with all kinds of fairy tales. It's been done since the dawn of time; just look at the mythology of ancient, or even not so ancient (dark ages) people! Now we know how much bullshit that was, because we've been able to explain a lot of those things with the scientific method, so nobody worships the god of wind anymore for whatever weather-related issues - they ask a meteorologist!

PS I'm sorry if my post is hard to understand or is written poorly, because I didn't get much sleep last night and I find it hard to articulate myself as is, let alone in this state. My apologies and have a nice day.

 

[rickolasnice]

Your post makes complete sense.. far more articulate and polite than i ever was (see link below)(

It's been a while, eh Foreigner? http://bluelight.org/vb/threads/691235-Free-will-vs-Determinism

Thinking about it.. I don't think I actually asked you (or you never said) what you believe conscious to be. Memories? Thoughts? Emotional feelings? Physical feelings?

 

[JessFR]

Determinism all the way. Free will is an illusion, a perfectly satisfactory illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

We live in a system, one that is chaotic yet governed by laws. In that it is chaotic, it is extremely sensitive to initial conditions (see chaos theory), and from our vantage point unpredictable and full of free will. But from a godlike vantage point of the universe, simply a system of cause and effect.

Our free will is simply our experience of our brains processing input stimuli on a platform governed by the effects of genetics and history and levels of biochemistry.

I can look at my own life and see how a butterfly flaps its wings and creates massive destruction in my life. The simplest and unlikeliest of interactions can change your life forever, and seem random. But all those interactions are the results of the ones that came before them.

I personally don't care that my free will is an illusion. It's feels real enough for me. For all practical purposes on our level we might as well say we have free will in our little goldfish bowl.

 

[cyberius]

one day i hope to achieve a sliver of free will, and i am determined enough to see this hope through.

in my current point of view, free will is found in the unconscious, away from thought and emotion, which are both subject entirely to genes, hormones and environmental factors. when you meditate, dance, create, or anything else that shuts your mind up momentarily, you are able to find a clarity of being from which free will exists. that thing is where epiphany comes from. that is where originality comes from.

and speaking of originality, i think this is the root of the immaculate conception (which predates the jesus story) comes from. it is the idea of a thing to come from nothing. an original thought is the ultimate immaculate conception. it is your one and only true spirit. it is your divinity (namaste). everything else is the magical but mechanical mud of the physical universe.

I believe this too! I believe our bodies and minds just naturally aren't sophisticated enough yet and we hold ourselves back by constantly drawing upon influence from past experiences. But, deditation or psychedelics that shed your biases can give you very brief moments of clarity (I've experienced this firsthand) in which I believe allow you to form thoughts not based around your experiences.

Maybe one day we will evolve enough to integrate a better semblance of "free will" into our lives. Were certainly closer than our animal relatives though to say the least, right?

 

[belligerent drunk]

I personally don't care that my free will is an illusion. It's feels real enough for me. For all practical purposes on our level we might as well say we have free will in our little goldfish bowl.

Exactly.

Maybe one day we will evolve enough to integrate a better semblance of "free will" into our lives. Were certainly closer than our animal relatives though to say the least, right?

No. There is no difference between us and bacteria or viruses in terms of free will. All of us have just as much free will; none. The difference between us and less complex animals (e.g other mammals) is that we have sufficiently sophisticated brains that we're able to analyze our lives/existence and come up with an illusion of free will.

 

[Nixiam]

Ahh Philosophy

While it is an interesting idea, science points to the conclusion that total free will is impossible. But nothing suggests that everything is predetermined either. For instance, you yourself (supposedly) decided to post in this thread. I'd say that (without getting religous) was a choice you made with free will. And if we're discussing conciousness, I'd like to point a finger at the double slit experiment, where sub atomic particles demonstrate what is seemingly a concious decision when the observation variable is added.

The idea that our thoughts and actions are controlled is widely disapproved of to Christians who feel that their free will is garunteed, even though the paradoxical god of omnipotence suggests we don't have that freedom by nature. Unless there is an omnipotent deity or this is just a scripted game, I see free will of actions in regards to non natural decisions a viable belief with few exceptions. Nobody wants to think they are deprived of free will, and that is one the reasons why the topic remains unsettled. I will believe that everything is predetermined when my conciousness has been discounted as simply a role that I cannot recognise.


For determinism to exist, actions must have already taken place and there for recorded, or there must be no uncontrolled variables which seems only viable in a universe where circumstances are unfair and god is a toddler playing with toys.


But for free will (meaning outside the instinct realm) to exist, we have to strongly suggest that there is no deity like such, and no possible way that actions could have taken place when they haven't happened.


I love debates. Please take my post with a grain of salt, I'm only 15 and my source of philosophy is college books I took from my library.


:D

______________________________


p.s.
While the issue does weigh heavy on my mind when brought to my attention, whether or not it exists doesn't mean that we can't make happiness for ourselves and assure our safety. 9/11 was an act of delusion, not predestiny. Determinism in a laws of physics sense seems more viable than all actions taken are written in a book. If conciousness is what determines choices, and conciousness is non physical, then choices are non physical and therefore undetermined if determinisms only existence is in physical laws. Maybe free will is an illusion, but its a damn good one if it is. I'll believe it after conciousness is proven to be nothing more than a chemical construct.


Please share and critisize, you guys are smart!

 

[belligerent drunk]

And if we're discussing conciousness, I'd like to point a finger at the double slit experiment, where sub atomic particles demonstrate what is seemingly a concious decision when the observation variable is added.

Physicists often like to assign agency to particles, because that makes explanations and talking about certain things a lot easier, as in it makes more sense in common sense that way, because in all honesty quantum theory is anything BUT common sense. To my knowledge, however, why exactly particles behave the way they do in certain situations is still a mystery - we only know that they do, not really why. So it is quite a stretch to say that that somehow means particles have "consciousness". Again, it makes talking about it easier for most people, to assign agency to particles - doesn't mean they actually have consciousness.

I will believe that everything is predetermined when my conciousness has been discounted as simply a role that I cannot recognise

It would not be correct to believe that everything is predetermined, because quantum world is not deterministic. It's a game of probabilities. Every action/outcome is possible and has a certain probability of happening. And our macro world is a sum of its quantum parts, so to speak; to my knowledge there is no evidence to the contrary.

However, as I said, to my knowledge there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything in physics or chemistry suggests that complex organisms (that indeed are chemical - and thus physical - systems) have some sort of free will in the way that we see it. We have an illusion of free will, as one above poster said. It's just a mechanism that evolved in our brains.

Kudos for being interested in philosophy at such a young age.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm going skip the rigorous treatment and just say of all the explanations I've seen this is the one I like the most.

Free-will is an illusion. Life is inexorably moving in the direction of ending illusions, therefor our fate is determined. While in this illusion we have time and space. Time is a learning device that allows us to chose the order in which lessons are learned (that's the free will component) which give rises to unique manifestations in space. The curriculum may be non-linear, but the lessons must all be learned. Then space and time end and the illusion ends. Yup, that's a leap, but any argument made on this topic involves a leap of one form or another, so I get to chose ones I like.

 

[Nixiam]

I love you, drunk.