• 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 question still stands, even if its your unique version of god

why would your god make the world that way it is? why would he create creatures that have cognitively dissonant existential questions about whether or not free weill exists?

well first of all I dont think god created anything,I believe everything is god,and god wasnt created, he just is


this particular will question is side effect of intelligence,maybe in some lab we can develop dna modified brain that is just like ours except never question free will thing

so u may ask why god didnt made us like that dna modified lab brain,its becose the nearly infinite or infinite amount of time and atoms over time get arranged into every possible constalation,now the constalation is with brains that question freedom of will.... one day there will be brain inside someone that will question everything except why not to vote obama
 
Was I destined to make this post?
What about hitting these keys?
I feel in control.
I can type whatever I want.
But what makes me want?

Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. - an angry german guy (schopenhauer)
You were destined to think you're in control and take control. Even with no god everything is predetermined. You changing your fate is your fate. Which is why we must learn to treat each other with respect as freewill is only an aspect of our predetermination.
 
I think it was Watts who said, "You have free will to the extent that you can come to the realization of what you are."
 
A Different Approach: The Great Void Donut

Though we live in an age beyond (certain) ultimates and absolutes, there remain yet a few things which may remain absolute despite modern anti-absolutism. There exists, for example, the world as it really is, regardless of our subjective experiences, norms, descriptions, or even various abilities to sense it.

Now, what if I were to tell you that it is my intuition that the universe is even more than what it seems, yet is still made up entirely of people... and, of course, the countless experiences we live through. (If you're rolling your eyes as this point considering this all highly speculative, I bid you simply consider it at least as a possibility.) Every one of us is (at minimum) a perspective that obtains in some universe (at least presumably, insofar as we can intuit). Additionally, we as human beings play, by at least the very act of identifying difference in the world, some part in its creation. In other words, as we are affected by the world around us, we substantiate it, cause it to obtain, as literally as possible, in our very responding to it - our defining it as some component of our cognitive perception.


So, perhaps we are the products of a truly fully determined world, as some would suggest, but in some very important ways we are also unmistakably actualizers of it. And as we see the potentials which lay before us, we literally see the limits of our ability to control its actualization, regardless of what ontology explains it (in other words, free or not). The grandeur of that limit (which is, by definition, infinite in both the determination of definition and action) should suffice for considering it, if not "legitimately free," at minimum very nearly infinitely redefinable. For me, this is enough: the challenge posed by the near limitlessness of definition seems sufficient for considering it at least practically free regardless of some "ultimate" determination (pun intended). For action, consider the following: there is nothing which ultimately forces anyone to do anything (drugs, perhaps, excepted in some cases) - "force" can always be conceived of as some set of counterfactuals (do it, orelse). You can always choose the else. Additionally, you can enact your will in a legitimate infinitude of ways: you can type slowly or quickly, the speed of which corresponding to some legitimately different action (or not at all, or do something completely different, or something in conjunction with, each of these legitimizing a difference in action of their own). In addition to this, you are capable of conceiving of some way of constituting legitimate differences in action that have hitherto never been conceived of before (throwing a blue spoon with your full name written on it while typing, for example). All of these things should help to convey the limitlessness of the variety of action we are capable of.


I know what you're thinking though: "but aren't these only mere subtleties that can be engaged in within a broader deterministic universe?" Two refutations: 1) no because the infinitesimal is a legitimate infinity rivaling all others and 2) no because each of these constitutes some different legitimate change in physicality (which, from the determinist's view, must each constitute legitimately different deterministic universes). On top of that your ability to act upon the subtleties of your will at minimum seems to be instantiable spontaneously and without cause. "But isn't that just pushing the problem back one step, serving only to further obscure it?" Maybe, but I'm not so sure. Regardless, even if so, at this point it should be pushed back to the point of relative irrelevance if not absolute. Yes, we may not really have free will, but the degree to which we seem to be free remains astonishingly profound.


Which brings me to the "the great void donut" theory, which is basically the ontology of this perspective.


Imagine you could see a great vortex extended before you, like say in "outer space," containing all the possibilities of the future. In front of you the possibilities of the future expand the further in time you look, behind you lies the past. But you're here in the now beholding this continuum while experiences and time filter in through the keyhole of your perspective... In front, you see the unactualized potentials of the real which create this ever-stretching vortex of possibility that eventually fades into an infinite darkness on far that seems to surround and even contains you on all sides as it spirals outward with the shape of that vortex, you at its center the very keyhole of actualization... Inside the vortex is not only everything in the physical universe as it condenses into the singularity of the actualization of your existence within it, but all possible future universes as well as they extend before you as they multiply exponentially. Then, looking behind, you see the singularity of the existence you have actualized, having pulled all these possibilities together through the keyhole of your being, eventually becoming a single chain of actuality, extending back into the void from whence you came.... In every direction, then, the void of nonactualization surrounds the singularity of your existence, creating one very large, but singular void donut.


But as you continue to consider it, you realize that you also continue to move through it, and that what you really considered in front of you - this huge realm of bounded possibility - seems better described as being below: the void - the limit of all possible universes that you could actualize being finite as compared to the limit of the possibilities of the universe that you are a part of - indeed your very own end, now looks like little more than the ground you're helpless but to fall into - the inevitability of your own eventual nonexistence and inability to actualize anything; you at its center continually pulling it into being even as you read this.


And you can look around and see it all happening... You, at the center of the great void donut that is your universe, your perspective literally shaping the world beyond the keyhole... This is your experience - the real as your consciousness defines it by its very nature.


And you realize that it almost seems like you're the one putting the world together in front of you, like some crazy typewriter frantically stamping actuality into existence - the otherwise unactualized story of your being - dialing the world into place, perhaps just some machine of math and madness; living this ludicrous dream that you never realized was a dream: you perhaps just this fantasy, just this fiction, just this... beautiful lie... A ribbon you'd tied long ago into this universe to create it. Its own kind of sweetness all your own... And as you peer back into that singularity, you can almost see yourself tied there on that infinite tree of actualized possibility. And it contains everything. And it is previous. And yet it continues out in front of you as you dial it into being: you can see it stopping there in front of you - your own life and demise just a mimicry of the universe's as it all falls towards its own inevitable end of all existence... Until peering back into the world in front of you within the vortex to see... the actual as it's happening: the words back on this page. As authored by another out in this world across from you who sees the same thing - the same perspective, the same inevitabilities, the same great void donut, yet just another ribbon on that same trunk of actuality... Eventually, even perhaps the same as you, undifferentiated, long long ago... And the same for the next man. And the next. And the next...


It's as if each of us were black holes in space devouring all experiences and potentialities in physicality with our very existence, dialing the actual into being through our being alone as we define it. Yet all sharing the same beginning, and indeed the same end - all falling out of the sky.


So that when we look at one another and the great void donut which envelops us all we often simply say: savor it. Just savor every last thing. Because every second in every minute of every universe which ever actualizes only exists one time. And if not, this is your last ride on this roller coaster until your universe comes all the way back within it. However, that could well be an infinite amount of time... by definition, even!


It is, then, as I fall into the actuality of existence with you that I make this universal suggestion: don't simply enjoy the ride, but consider that this is the universal predicament of actualization. And in light of that fact, I bid you not just fall or enjoy the falling, but consider the universe into which you fall - the very same one you affect/create/actualize as we all do - and, instead of falling for your own enjoyment, fall beautifully, so as to actualize the world containing the best possibilities we can as experiencers of actualization, universes unto ourselves, all of whom play a role in the creation in the great void donut of this world...
 
Last edited:
Believers of freewill -


Problem 1:
If every particle from the big bang was given a momentum and direction, then what would cause any one of those particles to change course?

I don't mean one hitting another and changing direction, as that was bound to happen, but at what point would they stop following their set course?


Problem 2:
From birth we are the foundation of a human being.. we have the cells, they're just not yet aligned and formed into memories, likes, dreams, etc..

At what point does a person gain the ability of freewill? A baby is clearly reacting on instinct - external stimuli + the cells that make them (which they have no control over)..

At what point does a person learn to manipulate their bodies on a cellular level?

A certain network becoming active in the brain causes the thought / decision.. Not the other way round.

Problem 3:
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html
http://www.cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627310010822
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021612

Vid if you can't be bothered to read:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i3AiOS4nCE
 
the big bang is just an assumption, and the idea that there was no consciousness behind the big bang is also an assumption

not that i don't believe in the big bang, but since none of us were there, it cannot be used as conclusive evidence of anything
 
Rick said:
If every particle from the big bang was given a momentum and direction, then what would cause any one of those particles to change course?

I don't mean one hitting another and changing direction, as that was bound to happen, but at what point would they stop following their set course?

Depending on your interpretation of QM, the initial conditions of a system of particles is only probabilistically determinate of the outcome, so there was no determinacy to begin with. This is not to say that I believe in free-will in any straightforward way (though I wonder if a Hofstadterian interpretation of the genesis of consciousness opens up the door to compatiblism), nor do I think indeterminacy is adequate to establish free will.

A baby is clearly reacting on instinct - external stimuli + the cells that make them (which they have no control over)..

but not any more or less so than adults.

TNW said:
the big bang is just an assumption

No, it's an empirical hypothesis.

ebola
 
Aimed mostly at ebola? but open to all:

How does wave function collapse tie into your belief in de termism and do you buy into the infinite alternate reality theories that stem from it?

NSFW:

I personally don't see any reason to think that wave function function collapse and determinism are mutually exclusive.. I know why I just can't think how to explain it..

And I don't buy into the infinite alternate realities because of the reason I can't explain..

I'll try when my brain is a bit more up to it / your belief resembles mine :p
 
Last edited:
I find it a bit of a red-herring, as most people wouldn't consider probabilistic determination of one's thoughts and actions sufficient for establishment of free-will.

And I don't buy into the infinite alternate realities because of the reason I can't explain..

I commonly vacillate between a Copenhagenish interpretation congruent with American Pragmatist metaphysics and a many universes interpretation. I find the latter useful in reconciling a foregrounding in the role of both consciousness and material mechanics in describing phenomena. Given this, I'd be interested in knowing why you reject the multiverse.
...
So I have two questions:
1. Might it actually be possible to reconcile the Copenhagen interpretation with the multiverse if we posit that the two simply view the multiverse from different perspectives (and possibly levels of analysis)?
2. Do people consider the existence of multiple levels of analysis useful in putting forth a compatiblist formulation of willing. Namely, it could be the case that at a physical level, interactions among particles determine psychological phenomena, but at a psychological level of analysis, it could still be the case that the concept of willing is useful in picturing how we engage our world on a conceptual level. These levels of analysis are non-reductive, in that the psychological is not reducible to the physical: while it could be the case that given perfect information about the physical state of a system, one could derive the mental state that would arise, it might not be the case that mental states can be explained intelligibly as certain types of physical states; put alternately, given a particular mental state, there might be no discernible statistical trend in the types of physical states that could have given rise to it. We can also couple this with the notion that particular social configurations further shape the relationship between physical state and mental state insofar as they provide context

But here, we need to be clear about how we conceptualize the relationship between physical levels of analysis and mental levels: are these layers of analysis simply distinct, reciprocally causal, dialectical, or what? If the latter, what does that mean?

ebola
 
Given this, I'd be interested in knowing why you reject the multiverse.

Put simply.. I don't think the quantum realm is as random as we now think it is. We just don't understand it enough, yet.

If measuring the particle / wave causes it's collapse then my deterministic views say it would have collapsed at that precise point into that precise particle..

And as far as i know; it is not consciousness that causes the particle wave function collapse.. It's the measuring that particle.. It would collapse if the setup was present but no conscious being ever looked at the data..

For the record I am talking about The Many-Worlds Theory .. Not the multiverse theory..

But what if the wave function collapse never happens?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw
 
Last edited:
What's attractive about the many worlds interpretation is that it doesn't require a magic collapse of the wave function - all possible particles are all there, just in slightly overlapping universes. It allows to get rid of the 'quantum weirdness', but replaces it with probably even weirder 10 to the 100 number of universes that are different by only one particle (plus god knows how many others) (might have got the numbers wrong - david deutsch fabric of reality is a good book from the many worlds viewpoint (which i can only half-remember). I sort of like the billions of paralell universes thing because it appeals to my sf gene, but it is a lot to swallow - and what does it do to the discusson of free will or ethics (like thinking 'one of me somewhere will choose right...').
 
i've said it before but imo it bears repeating --

the idea that consciousness would arise within a purely deterministic universe just seems far too bizarre to me
 
I just had a thought..

I was fascinated by people that developed very bizarre cognitive functions after suffering a brain injury (normally a stroke) so was watching documentaries and reading up on various conditions (don't ask me to name them)

For example someone would not believe his father was his father.. he admitted he looked exactly like him, sounded exactly like him but was convinced he must be an imposter. Another woman completely neglected the left (can't think of the word).. for example.. when asked to draw a cat she would only draw the right side.. when finished she could see nothing wrong with it..

But anyway it got me thinking..

If somebody somehow severed the connections of the subconscious parts of the brain which is making the decisions from the conscious part of the brain.. they would actually be (or be very fucking close to) the philosophical zombie.. o_O

Or am i just talking shit?
 
Not shit, interesting. I think the term 'zombie' shows how behind western philosophy is compared with some eastern traditions - it's basically living in the moment without thought, or running on inutition (or the right brain or something). That we choose a negative term like zombie for this says something about us i think (and how hung up on the 'ego' we are).

(one of) my view(s) is that the underlying substrate of our consciousness (like what's left after ego death/NDE), and at least part of our 'subconsciousness' is actually direct collective cellular experience, so doesn't require the brain necessarily (though it does require a brain to convert it into a narrative tale to tell ourselves when we come down). just a hunch though
 
OK so I read as much of this thread as I can..
Some people answered in long ways and big interpretations and some kept it short. Some even gave me ideas I never thought about.
So here's my opinion about it:
Almost 4 months ago, our English teacher asked us to write a 50l essay talking about whether we are free with making our decisions or if it is taken by another supreme being.
So the thing is rhat this teacher isn't a big fan of me and I don't like her so much either.
Knowing she believes in faith, that everything happens for a reason, I tried to act nice for her for once by writing exactly what she wanted to hear. I wrote how we are ment to do this and that and how everything is preplanned by faith.
Being the birch she is, she didn't like my essay! And said that this is not always the case.
I went back surpeised. This idiot is known for her beliefs! She says that's how she met her husband... That they were separated for a long time and were united back again from faith. And she says this about other things. But all of a sudden that hated-student decides to thing along she denies it.
She changed her mind depending on what I said back then. She said the same for all other students.
Long story maybe.. But my point is that we will never know to answer this type of answer. Our answer will always be relative to our current situation. Our religion will have its opinion inside our heads. Whether we are optimistic or not changes our view about whether yes or not, everything is supposed to happen for a reason.
My bad English held me from saying what I want but here is everything I meant in one sentence:
Whether yes or not, we believe that everything is meant to happen, is relative to our current emotions and events that are happening, so it can change over night.
 
I'm not 100 percent on this one, but I am inclined to agree with Sam Harris that free will, as we commonly think of it, is an illusion.
 
Top