Free will

[delta_9]

theres no such thing as destiny or fate or whatever you wanna call it, how can u believe that, i bet every year u wait up hoping to catch a glimse of santa clause

 

[Pegasus]

your question can mean multiple things to me... care to clarify?

I will try.

Imagine you go back in time 1 minute, without being aware of it (you go back to exactly where you were 1:00 ago, nothing changed). Do you think that one minute would play out the exact way? There would be no new stimuli, only the events that were already set in action at 1:01. Would anything cause what happens during that minute to differ from what actually happened, and if so, how?

 

[Pegasus]

I urge you to think it from this point: Destiny, free will and random change are same thing.

I'm here now. Nothing else matters. Whether I'm put here(Destiny), came here(Free Will) or just happen to be here(Random Change) is irrelevant. In all instances, I'm here now, and what I choose(Free Will) to become(Destiny) is what is(Random Change) relevant.

We are as much agents of our own free will, as we are pawns of destiny. And from our choices spur the seeds of random change.

We aren't talking about random change; we're talking about non-random change.

 

[qwedsa]

^alchemist does have a point when he says that it doesnt really matter

to explain... if someone suddenly comes to the conclusion that determinism exists, or fate exists, or free will exists, or things are random, or probabalistic, or etc...

everything's still the same. reality feels the same way

 

[Pegasus]

^Yeah, understood. But it does matter, as Albert Einstein so eloquently put it:

"In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, that "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will," has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralysing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humour, above all, has its due place."

 

[elemenohpee]

plus motherfucking one

 

[qwedsa]

What aload of rubbish. Computers are machines. We are living human beings. There is a difference, its not that hard to understand

im not sure if youve had a biology or anatomy course but the human body is a machine. many mechanical processes are going on right now to keep you alive. predictable chemical reactions keep you alive

Computers can't have emotions otherwise they wouldn't be called computers would they? Our emotions are influenced, computers so-called emotions are programmed in. There's a huge difference.

emotions have two aspects: their subjective feel (qualia) and their influence on decision making / behavior

computers, if they don't experience qualia, obviously don't have the first. but there's no reason why they can't have the second aspect

even for humans, who experience the emotions subjectively, the emotions can be predicted and explained by natural, mechanical processes. emotions dont refute determinism in any way, which is my main point

by the way, your brain is just as 'programmed' as a computer is. something needs to be the source of your brain's abilities. with you, it's your genes and your environment since birth. with a computer, it's a trained human

I think you'll find that's what many scientists say is what seperates us from being computers, so, you calling them silly?

i think you need to get a better backround on neuroscience and computer science

We make the final decision, no matter what, I could've ignored your post if I wanted to, but made the final decision not to becuase I wanted to reply. I have ignored these influences before so you can't really say its becuase of them.

you cant account for all influences and say you can ignore all of them

you can choose, but your decision, and decision making process, etc, are based on natural processes, and thus can be predicted. thats all determinism really says. how does this not make sense?

If I didn't feel like I had free will there would be no point in existing

that shouldnt have any bearing on whether determinism is valid or not. whether something is true doesnt depend on whether it makes you happy or not

 

[qwedsa]

Imagine you go back in time 1 minute, without being aware of it (you go back to exactly where you were 1:00 ago, nothing changed). Do you think that one minute would play out the exact way? There would be no new stimuli, only the events that were already set in action at 1:01. Would anything cause what happens during that minute to differ from what actually happened, and if so, how?

i'd really like to see a non-determinist try refute BollWeevil's example above

 

[DarthMom]

it isn't a great example at all for those of us who aren't fans of hard determinism. and this point is what we have been going over and over, and what separates us.

there have been many fast decisions i have made on whims, that could have gone either way. and i do not believe i would have done the same thing if it was able to be repeated over and over. and that is really what it boils down to. i believe my choices would have been different on occasions, you hard determinists don't. too bad it isn't an idea we can prove, nope...just philosophy.

 

[doesntmatter]

deffinately can't prove it, however i'd like to pose a question out of interest.

i may be incorrect in my assumtion here, so correct me if i'm wrong

hard determinism is the belief that everything can be predicted with 100% accuracy. this prediction is capable because with the right equation (a unified theory) and enough data (would have to be complete knowledge of eveything, including things that humans can't observe, otherwise there is a margin of error and a reason for doubt) every human action can be predicted. and therefor if it were possible to "rewind" a certain instance and replay it, it would unfold the exact same way.

assuming that that is all true, i pose this question.

what's the point of going past the omniscient part and trying to make a "prediction?" you would have to know everything there is to know to have enough data to accurately predict something. you can't know everything but say, where an electron will be in orbit at a certain instance in time. that one variable COULD have a butterfly effect on your whole prediction.

so whats the point of of the theory if to have the theory work, you already know everything?

 

[qwedsa]

^because it seems to have implications in regards to free will

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

I understand determinism. It makes sense for the most part. Here are the problems that I see.

Determinism is based on underlying assumptions which must be accepted as truth in order for it to work. On top of being based assumptions which must be accepted as self-evident in order for it to be, determinism cannot be tested.

Here are the axioms and the problems with each one.

1. Reality consists of seperate levels of components.

Problem: The typical view of everything being split up into smaller and smaller levels or components is a man made subjective way of looking at reality for the purpose of analysis and organization. Everything is just one thing. The only thing that seperates me from you is our mental image of reality.

2. These components affect each other through upward causation, each smaller level directly affecting the outcome of the level above it.

Problem: This makes every single level of components entirely dependant on the lowest level. Uh oh.. so what causes the first level to act the way it does? If its random then this completely negates the entire idea of determinism.

Here is what is completely ignored.

Its entirely possible for higher level to influence lower levels and for causation to work backwards. There are people out there who can control the brain waves at will. A human body could be viewed and understood as a system which directly influences every level beneath it. Saying laws of mechanics determine what we're thinking isn't much different then saying that what we chose to think determine what you see on the lower levels.

Additionally to top it all of, by following the rules of occam's razor which is what all you hardcore logicians love to do, the simplest explanation is that everything happens at random since thats the explanation that has the least amount of hypothetical superflous entities.

I want to see somebody address these problems as I haven't seen a good argument against any of this so far.

 

[qwedsa]

cool post trails

1. Reality consists of seperate levels of components.

Problem: The typical view of everything being split up into smaller and smaller levels or components is a man made subjective way of looking at reality for the purpose of analysis and organization. Everything is just one thing. The only thing that seperates me from you is our mental image of reality.

i think most determinists recognize that these 'levels' are our way of categorization. ive always associated a deterministic model as very close to the idea that everything is one, the same stuff, nothing seperates us except some idea of a 'boundary' we conceptually place at our skin

even though seeing these levels is a subjective way of comprehending the universe, this doesnt imply that the model of determinism doesnt work. or, i dont see how it implies that it doesn't...

Problem: This makes every single level of components entirely dependant on the lowest level. Uh oh.. so what causes the first level to act the way it does? If its random then this completely negates the entire idea of determinism.

take a look at the 'physics: infinite regress' thread, its exactly what we're discussing

Its entirely possible for higher level to influence lower levels and for causation to work backwards

well think about it. when a higher level is influencing a lower level, what this means is (since the lower level makes up the higher level) all thats happening is the lower level is influencing itself! no problems here at all. as youve said, levels dont really exist

Additionally to top it all of, by following the rules of occam's razor which is what all you hardcore logicians love to do, the simplest explanation is that everything happens at random since thats the explanation that has the least amount of hypothetical superflous entities.

these random fluctuations would have to have a reason for them to exist, ie, something 'behind them,' ie, a 'lower level,' and so we've gotten nowhere with occam's razor here

 

[Pegasus]

Trails, I see no problem with causation working both ways.

Let's look at an example of downward causation from the environment of the earth to the human, to his DNA. If the environment kills the human, then the DNA of that person ceases to be, and the gene pool is directly limited by the environment. This is downward causation, but it still is completley deterministic.

Also, I don't understand why you have a problem with this. As you said yourself, these levels don't really exist.

 

[Pegasus]

doesntmatter, the point isn't to be able to predict the future, it's to attempt to gain a deeper understanding as to how our world operates. That being said, looking at the world from a deterministic perspective does help you to see how things are likely to turn out in the future, and to act accordingly.

 

[shoe70]

Actually, we're run via bioelectric impulses. The difference between our brains and computers is that our brains are analog processors, whereas computers are digital processors. A digital processor reads each piece of data at a 0 or 1, on or off, yes or no, whereas an analog processor is able to see shades of grey.

So really, our brains are just very advance computers, so advances that we haven't really even begun to understand how they work as a whole to make us.

Actually our brains run very much like a digital computer. When a neuron receives a signal, there are no gray areas - it either receives a signal or it doesn't. It's through the large clusters of neurons that grow together as they become used more that the 'analog' property of our brain emerges.

 

[doublethink ninja]

"a man can do as he will, but not will as he will"

I think this second will is the ego. I also think that the ego is determined by all of the factors mentioned by the original poster.

Simply put, you willingly lose free will to the forces of your ego. Which is determined not only by every experience you have up until this point, but also the perceptions you perceive of those experiences. Buy what determines those perceptions?
Perceptions can change too.

 

[Pegasus]

"a man can do as he will, but not will as he will"

I think this second will is the ego. I also think that the ego is determined by all of the factors mentioned by the original poster.

Simply put, you willingly lose free will to the forces of your ego. Which is determined not only by every experience you have up until this point, but also the perceptions you perceive of those experiences. Buy what determines those perceptions?
Perceptions can change too.

That isn't what was meant by the quote. It's clear that he is saying there isn't a free will.

 

[satricion]

OK.

What is stopping you from accepting free will is self evident?

The self-causation paradox?

You could say there is a 'loophole' for self-causation - the impermanance of the universe.

The cause that brought 'the universe' into 'existance' is unknoweable from where we stand, as there was no way to physically observe before time and space began. Hence, what happened before that point doesn't matter.

Moving forward, let's look at the evidence.

Maybe we weren't alive before life on earth. Conditions arose for life. So life began. Conditions were ripe for life to evolve, so life evolved. Billions of years ago, we may have spent countless lives as amobeas. Billions of years later, conditions became ripe for single celled life to evolve into animals and plants. Later still, animals very slowly became more advanced until humans like us evolved. So here we are today.

Notice how life's freedom for self-determined action evolved from amoeba-> plant-> animal-> human?

It could be said that free will evolved with life itself.

As far as I am aware, I did not cause time and space to begin and I did not cause 'myself' to 'exist'. Yet here I am today, able to spontaneuosly choose my actions and beliefs - 'standing on the sholders' of countless generations of ancestors.

So the genetic arguement used to back determism can be used to support free will also.

Nyer.

This argument doesn't support your position at all. It's difficult to discern any argument at all here really...

Basically you start by acknowledging that you can't cause yourself, but then you say 'but I still have free will, so it obviously doesn't matter!'

I mean...basically you're just assuming free will is true and using that to dismiss the impossibility of the conditions necessary for free will as irrelevant. None of your posts really argue for free will at all...you just take it as self evident.

 

[satricion]

Oh and also I really don't see why people in this thread can't see the validity of the determinism/indeterminism argument.

In any possible reality determinism is either true or false, those are our only options. But free will is incompatible with both of these options. In one scenario our actions are predetermined by physical laws, and in the other they are completely random, and neither of these allows free will.

So it doesn't matter whether or not you think our brains are like computers. If they are then free will is false, and if they're not it's still false.

The only way to argue for free will is basically to say that there is some 'soul' inside human beings that just magically produces free will and can get around the self-causation argument, and the determinism/indeterminism argument.

Good luck!