are you a determinist or is EVERYTHING RANDOM

[greenberryhaze]

Impacto,

I think we can agree that the universe is at least partially deterministic. So we ask the question, if the universe is partially non-deterministic, to what extent is this the case? What does the non-deterministic part look like? The answer cannot be anything other than "it is completely random." If it were, if there was any structure there, then it would have to be partially deterministic by definition, which is contradiction of our assumptions.

So again I ask, what meaning is there in a free will that can only flip coins?

 

[L2R]

You're approaching the matter as a materialist, whereas i don't. I think the glass is half full, not half empty, so when you ask what it is that is non-deterministic, it is hard to answer. something else is the best way i can address it without being misleading.

 

[being]

If everything was 100% random, I don't see, how life could even exist. Life could come to being, but it would also die out the very next moment it did.
It takes so much order for life to exist for more than a moment and we have observed A LOT of order in physics.
IMHO this already proves, that on the physical plane, there's a lot of determinism.
There is no such proof for free will, other than our own belief of it, which could very well be 100% an illusion.

 

[ebola?]

I'll try to find the right threads to link. I'll still put forth my perennial position that we need to operationalize "willing" and in turn "free willing". We must also clarify determinism: if probabalistic laws of particle-interaction determine completely what is willed, don't we have a 'functional' equivalent of classical determinism in regard to the act of willing (ie, a lack of space for free will)?

I'll try this time:

To will freely: within the cognitive behavioral realm, perhaps some 'mental directives'* exert autonomous causal influence on aspects of psyche and physiology. Autonomous how? These directives which constitute willing are themselves exempt from full causal determination by logically and/or temporally prior phenomena.

Thus, freedom of will does not necessitate proper 'randomness'.

*(felt by us as qualia of the experience of willing, 'externally' observable as shaping neural activity and/or relatively unconstrained bodily behavior)

Full determinism: some constellation of causal factors determines fully the form, content, and trajectory of change over time for a determined phenomenon.

...
I find my particular bent on this matter to be getting stale, so I'mma wait for others to chime in.

ebola

 

[greenberryhaze]

You're approaching the matter as a materialist, whereas i don't. I think the glass is half full, not half empty, so when you ask what it is that is non-deterministic, it is hard to answer. something else is the best way i can address it without being misleading.

I approach the issue, as with any other, as a rationalist, which isn't the same thing as a materialist.

I'm willing to change my mind, if the evidence dictates. Are you?

 

[ugly]

In a nutshell.........
things happen for a reason

/end of thought.

 

[greenberryhaze]

Ebola, what do you mean by "proper 'randomness'"?

 

[ebola?]

A random event occurs when it conforms to these conditions:

Even with full knowledge of all relevant causal factors, one cannot predict (or intelligibly explain) the effects wrought...I think, tentatively.

 

[.Lucid.]

.Lucid.
If the future is set, then how is causality "lessened"?

free will = a future which is not set.

i think we're just not on the same page as to what "free will" actually means.

the lessening of causality comes about as a result of causality itself, so in absolute terms its not really "lessened" at all and therefor is predetermined.. its almost like a paradox i guess. so i guess a better way to describe it would be a lessening of materiality. all material forms (including internal forms - thoughts and feelings) are subject to cause and effect.

through a series of causal factors, a human being becomes realized, detaches from internal forms, and causality then sort of collapses on itself.. im saying that free will just means a person is no longer imprisoned by internal cause and effect, however, external cause and effect remain in play.

i wish i could explain it better.. but basically my point is still that everything is totally predetermined.

 

[greenberryhaze]

I think that's a perfectly good definition. It leads pretty much straight to the information theoretic definition, so I'd better be ok with it. To be honest I think I misunderstood your argument the first time. You are arguing that there is room for free will even in a deterministic universe, yes?

Here's the way I wrap my head around this issue:
Free will is an illusion only to the extent that solid materials are. Of course none of the things we consider solid really are, by the intuitive definition of the word, because everything we know of is mostly empty space. Do I think solids are illusory? Nope, I just modify my definition of solidness to include epiphenomena, rather that something intrinsic to the matter that composes them, and this has no bearing on what happens when I sit in a chair.

In a nutshell.........
things happen for a reason

What about outside the nutshell?

 

[7ca5p]

What about outside the nutshell?

hahaha, I like that :D

To be honest, id rather the uiverse was predetermined. I mean, as a theory it is far more comforting and much easier to deal with.

After all, if I can simply say, well, lets just go along for the ride, as the story is already written , Im more than happy to glide along the pages, and play along with my illusion as I go. Much more poetic. So determinism is a much more attractive theory.

I dont see how this can be the case though.

I feel that rather than gliding across a book, I am having to turn the pages myself then write them out as I go. This is a lot more stressfull imo, knowing that every desicion you make is yours and your entirley responsible for it.

I apolagise for using the pronoun 'I', but im sure you get the point. Ill replace them with 'One' if that is prefered.

I just dont see how things can be predetermined....but id love to change my mind.

 

[L2R]

I approach the issue, as with any other, as a rationalist, which isn't the same thing as a materialist.

I'm willing to change my mind, if the evidence dictates. Are you?

lol at "rationally", as if anything immaterial is irrational. this is not the case.

i share your eagerness for a mind change (how else do we grow?), however what seems evident to one may not be so to another. hence my usage of the glass metaphor.

 

[L2R]

i think we're just not on the same page as to what "free will" actually means.

the lessening of causality comes about as a result of causality itself, so in absolute terms its not really "lessened" at all and therefor is predetermined.. its almost like a paradox i guess. so i guess a better way to describe it would be a lessening of materiality. all material forms (including internal forms - thoughts and feelings) are subject to cause and effect.

through a series of causal factors, a human being becomes realized, detaches from internal forms, and causality then sort of collapses on itself.. im saying that free will just means a person is no longer imprisoned by internal cause and effect, however, external cause and effect remain in play.

i wish i could explain it better.. but basically my point is still that everything is totally predetermined.

the illusion of freedom is not actual freedom. actual "free will" doesn't fit in what you describe. it can't be both as you describe, not without changing the meanings of the terms involved. see ebola? (the walking dicktionary)'s definition and note the "autonomous causal influence" part. you cannot exert such an influence if you're just watching.

 

[.Lucid.]

what do you consider free will?

what im trying to describe to you is probably not "free will" as youre thinking of it, but its as close as we can get to it. i guess you dont understand what im trying to say, but thats ok, its hard for me to explain what im talking about.. self realization is a tricky subject to speak of. i simply wanted to address the topic of the thread but i guess i got sidetracked on the nature and meaning of free will.

anyway, i stand by my initial assertion that everything is totally predetermined. every single event that occurs within this universe can be traced to a prior event.. and all events ultimately trace back to the singularity, the beginning of the universe. this is simply a matter of physics. there is clearly a higher order at work and i honestly really dont see how thats even up for debate..

 

[L2R]

that's all good, buddy. please just stop using the term "free will" if that's not what you actually mean. thanks for the clarification. "as close as we get" does indeed clear things up.

 

[.Lucid.]

i hope you know what i mean cause if you think about it it makes a ton of sense!

thanks for taking me seriously.. no one in my personal life wants to talk about this kind of shit lol.

 

[L2R]

tell me about it! little wonder why i've posted in this forum for close to ten years now :D

 

[greenberryhaze]

lol at "rationally", as if anything immaterial is irrational. this is not the case.

Rationalism does not take an a priori position on materialism vs non-materialism. There are rationalists who take pretty much the same position as you. I just think they're wrong.

hahaha, I like that :D

To be honest, id rather the uiverse was predetermined. I mean, as a theory it is far more comforting and much easier to deal with.

After all, if I can simply say, well, lets just go along for the ride, as the story is already written , Im more than happy to glide along the pages, and play along with my illusion as I go. Much more poetic. So determinism is a much more attractive theory.

Are you sure determinism is more attractive? Would you want this to happen?

I dont see how this can be the case though.

I feel that rather than gliding across a book, I am having to turn the pages myself then write them out as I go. This is a lot more stressfull imo, knowing that every desicion you make is yours and your entirley responsible for it.

I still believe I am responsible for my decisions. Not so much with the turning the pages yourself thing, but that's just because I am too lazy to move my fingers.

 

[Vader]

This issue has given me a great deal of thought recently. I experience cognitive dissonance on the issue; on the one hand, I am convinced by both physical and metaphysical arguments for determinism. On the other hand, I act and behave as if I were a free agent, and as if everyone else were. If someone does something that is harmful to me, I do not think to myself "it was unavoidable, he had no choice in the matter"; I am angry with the person for the choice that they made. It seems so difficult to make something meaningful out of life if I reject the idea of free will, that I choose to essentially disregard the results of my analysis because, frankly, it conflicts with what I want to believe.

Now, if I think it's acceptable to reject the conclusions of science and reason because they seem to make my life less meaningful- why should I stop there? Why should I not adopt a religion? After all, I can see that it is clearly a fruitful belief for many people to have, one that gives them structure and value in their lives. If I am willing to act as if determinism were false out of personal preference, why should I not also act as if Christianity were true?

 

[L2R]

^you're synonimising determinism with given truth, and religion with delusion, i think that's where your logic fails. we are simply incapable of knowing these things, so they can't be taken as a given. They coincide with our rationality, but this is more of a comment on our rationality and perception than it is a comment on the nature of the universe. Probabilistically speaking, that is.

Considering the size of the universe, both on a macro and micro scale, it is far less likely that we have developed our thoughts based on our faulty perceptions and faculties to be capable of generating a clear understanding of our surroundings and our nature, than we have not, and cannot.

Not to diminish our accomplishments, humanity have accomplished many amazing and absolutely great things, but to say that we can know the universe is a delusion of our own grandeur.

Rationalism does not take an a priori position on materialism vs non-materialism. There are rationalists who take pretty much the same position as you. I just think they're wrong.

supergreen i absolutely agree.