• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Free will vs. Determinism

Well the electrical impulses and chemical releases will always play out the same.. The present is at it is because of the nano second before it, and that was as it was because of the nano second before that..

Everything we think and do isn't excluded.

And no it's nothing like having your hand grab a pepsi while you consciously think you want a mountain dew.. you consciously think you want something because of everything that has happened before that point.. ignoring universal determinism - the brain works in the same way.. the networks that have grown within your brain due to genetics and past experience will cause you to always make the same decision if in the EXACT same circumstance.. apart from that there is evidence that people make decisions before the conscious thought happens.

Can't be arsed to go through articles etc but here's one:

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

If all particles etc are obeying the laws of physics then why would things play out any differently no matter how many times you played through it?
 
There may be more to consciousness than physics. You can keep saying there isn't but this is not so conclusive.
 
the non material spirit.

and yes i am well aware of the additional knowledge gap this introduces, in that how does the non material have any influence on the material. the brain is a special machine which allows this contact. i think it might have something to do with electricity, but there is no way to test/prove it.

this is just about the problem one prefers, either "material/non material interaction" or "causal phenomenology/qualia".
 
L2R said:
There may be more to consciousness than physics. You can keep saying there isn't but this is not so conclusive.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Consciousness is not something that arises from our brain's physical activity, it's something that plays an active role in it. There is no remotely conclusive evidence that our conscious mind is merely an illusion created by brain activity that occured micro-moments earlier... ironically I think rickolasnice is too "determined" to really listen to this viewpoint.
 
rickolasnice said:
Nothing but hypothesis based on a want for there to be something more :p
Click to expand...

i've repeatedly admitted in this forum that my theism is based on arbitrary preference.

but my post is no different than your hypothesis which is actually based on want for there to be something simpler than what is.

we both have faith. at least mine isn't hostile.
 
Drugs.. MPA mainly :\ I do get a bit (very) argumentative when I haven't slept for a couple nights and I still have stimulants in me.. Anyone else find that (without derailing the thread)? I notice it a lot in my friends and girlfriend.. and obviously me.

I'll be friendly now i promise :D Took my last dose hours ago im just up on GTA 5 :)
 
this is very important and wins the thread, and i'm only going to explain it once:

whether or not determinism is true, free will is impossible. if determinism is true, then the outcome of any given decision is caused by circumstances - clearly if that's the case then a decision cannot be made freely. if determinism is false, then any given decision is made without cause, which is, by definition, random - clearly if a decision is decided randomly, then it is not made freely; that would be like if your brain was hooked up to a random number generator and any time it generated a string ending in a 0 bit you'd make a certain decision, and any time it generated a string ending in a 1 bit you'd make another decision. not free.

free will cannot exist regardless of whether or not determinism is a sound construct. free will is a delusional and nonsensical idea for many reasons, but this is one of the most salient
 
Last edited:
Roger and Me said:
then any given decision is made without cause, which is, by definition, random
Click to expand...

This doesn't follow necessarily. "Non-determinism" comes in multiple flavors, and one can posit that will itself acts with some autonomy, so some aspect of willing is indeterminate in terms of being free of material cause but not 'random' per se.

I'm not saying that I subscribe to this idea, but some people do.

ebola
 
L2R said:
the non material spirit.

and yes i am well aware of the additional knowledge gap this introduces, in that how does the non material have any influence on the material. the brain is a special machine which allows this contact. i think it might have something to do with electricity, but there is no way to test/prove it.
Click to expand...

This picture is clearly explained but a tad dissatisfying, and it doesn't really answer the "how" or "why" of willing. It's clearly not proven false, but it probably can't be, which presents key obstacles to answering the questions raised.

this is just about the problem one prefers, either "material/non material interaction" or "causal phenomenology/qualia".
Click to expand...

Aren't these two problems intertwined into a single inquiry? In fashioning a causal phenomenology (I'd say "framework" instead, as we're not really penetrating the 'feel' of causation), one reckons the question of materiality/immateriality. In posting material/immaterial dualism, one begins to fashion conditions under which a causal account of qualia may be laid out.

ebola
 
rickolasnice said:
Drugs.. MPA mainly :\ I do get a bit (very) argumentative when I haven't slept for a couple nights and I still have stimulants in me.. Anyone else find that (without derailing the thread)? I notice it a lot in my friends and girlfriend.. and obviously me.

I'll be friendly now i promise :D Took my last dose hours ago im just up on GTA 5 :)
Click to expand...
I've noticed the same while abuse vyvanse and/or adderall... and GTA V is the shit.

Roger&Me said:
this is very important and wins the thread, and i'm only going to explain it once:

whether or not determinism is true, free will is impossible. if determinism is true, then the outcome of any given decision is caused by circumstances - clearly if that's the case then a decision cannot be made freely. if determinism is false, then any given decision is made without cause, which is, by definition, random - clearly if a decision is decided randomly, then it is not made freely; that would be like if your brain was hooked up to a random number generator and any time it generated a string ending in a 0 bit you'd make a certain decision, and any time it generated a string ending in a 1 bit you'd make another decision. not free.

free will cannot exist regardless of whether or not determinism is a sound construct. free will is a delusional and nonsensical idea for many reasons, but this is one of the most salient
Click to expand...
That sure doesn't win the thread, it falls victim to numerous fallacies.
 
ebola? said:
This picture is clearly explained but a tad dissatisfying, and it doesn't really answer the "how" or "why" of willing. It's clearly not proven false, but it probably can't be, which presents key obstacles to answering the questions raised.
Click to expand...
What do we do when there is no answer?

Amongst other things, We imagine, we create, we hypothesise, we dramatise and we test.

Why we will what we do can predominantly be attributed to causal factors such as experience, genes and disposition. But when we are faced with a question that our pasts do not have a sufficient answer, we create.

It's very difficult to dissect the creative process since it is not a conscious one.

Aren't these two problems intertwined into a single inquiry? In fashioning a causal phenomenology (I'd say "framework" instead, as we're not really penetrating the 'feel' of causation), one reckons the question of materiality/immateriality. In posting material/immaterial dualism, one begins to fashion conditions under which a causal account of qualia may be laid out.

ebola
Click to expand...
No, these two problems are quite different. The materialist faces the absence of will and the dualist faces the connectivity problem. Each perspective has no relation with the problem of the other.

As for a framework from which to find the causation of will, we can only make inferences from behavioural studies.

Such as, there have been studies of a special group of people to this end. Of all twin siblings, there is a proportion who are genetically identical, and of that group there is a very small group who despite having the exact same genes and environment has grown up to be quite different from one another. This study, I now recall, was about obesity. One genetic twin would be big and the other small.

There was no definitive conclusion, I'm just illustrating an example of where to look when trying for such a framework.
 
L2R said:
Why we will what we do can predominantly be attributed to causal factors such as experience, genes and disposition. But when we are faced with a question that our pasts do not have a sufficient answer, we create.
Click to expand...

This type of account is a bit similar to Maya's: true, but not really fundamentally linked to ontology. How do we account for how the sum physical activity of the body in its environment (further centralized in the CNS) appears to govern causally processes of consciousness?

L2R said:
No, these two problems are quite different. The materialist faces the absence of will and the dualist faces the connectivity problem. Each perspective has no relation with the problem of the other.
Click to expand...

This point is compatible with mine--I just made a claim cast on a different level of generality.

Such as, there have been studies of a special group of people to this end. Of all twin siblings, there is a proportion who are genetically identical, and of that group there is a very small group who despite having the exact same genes and environment has grown up to be quite different from one another. This study, I now recall, was about obesity. One genetic twin would be big and the other small.
Click to expand...

Were the twins adopted into different families or not? Regardless, small perturbations in physical phenomena can occasionally lead in various ways to profoundly unexpected and prominent downstream effects. Also, it's nigh impossible to provide twins "the same environment". That people share a family actually suggests distinct environments, as each sibling differentiates themselves by playing a different role vis-a-vis the family and even beyond.

ebola
 
They go hand in hand.

It was predetermined that I would have free will

I used my free will to live a life full of predetermination.

This thread is still open?... and yet My Succubi thread was closed. PFFttt
 
Roger&Me said:
this is very important and wins the thread, and i'm only going to explain it once:

whether or not determinism is true, free will is impossible. if determinism is true, then the outcome of any given decision is caused by circumstances - clearly if that's the case then a decision cannot be made freely. if determinism is false, then any given decision is made without cause, which is, by definition, random - clearly if a decision is decided randomly, then it is not made freely; that would be like if your brain was hooked up to a random number generator and any time it generated a string ending in a 0 bit you'd make a certain decision, and any time it generated a string ending in a 1 bit you'd make another decision. not free.

free will cannot exist regardless of whether or not determinism is a sound construct. free will is a delusional and nonsensical idea for many reasons, but this is one of the most salient
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. :) Simple, concise, and perfect description of the absurdity of "free will".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top