7.1 Free Will, Determinism and Choice
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 04. 2011
- A series of lectures delivered by Peter Millican to first-year philosophy students at the University of Oxford. The lectures comprise the 8-week General Philosophy course and were delivered in late 2009.
On the cusp of free will, might I add, I enjoy watching these videos for free, whenever I like. I'm determined to take my free will and choose to watch one video per night. Cheers
This is the kind of stuff that keeps philosophy in the classroom. Good lecturer who presents the arguments then deconstructs them using critical thinking.
Al Sunshine This issue will not be solved through rhetorical analysis. The analogous model for reference is biological evolution. Random mutation (i.e., change) and selection is a perfectly good model for human behavior; well demonstrated in thousands of peer-reviewed studies published across multiple decades.
+Brian LiuConstant I think you're confusing conceptual analysis and rhetorical discourse. I don't think that there's such thing as "rhetorical analysis".
To me, when I hear that an aspect of the physical laws is seemingly "random", I feel that we do not fully understand it. We may never understand it or have the means of doing so, but just because there doesn't seem to be an apparent law governing the exact position of an electron doesn't mean that there isn't a currently unknown force governing it. It is because of this that I am a determinist, and I feel that people who use quantum physics as an argument against determinism are simply wishfully grasping at something scientific that will justify their underlying feelings of having a free will.
Agreed.
Even if the quantum physics and the electron thing is true that still wont prove free will.
unless you call "random free will"
honestly - like every other scientific observation - electron paths i believe must also be predetermined.
how? well I think *based off the many worlds interpretation* that alternate electron paths are present in alteranate universes and also absent in others and that these alternate universes "overlap" each other in a form of equilibrium so that when "interlocked" they form a "whole".
mind you what would I know. im only a kid
The Problem with the many worlds interpretation is that you can't observe the other worlds, so it is an assumption that we will never able to prove.
Even if an Electron behaves random: The probability-function is always the same for every Electron in the same situation, so this isn't real contradiction to determinism.
"honestly - like every other scientific observation - electron paths i believe must also be predetermined."
I would say the opposite: Randomness is very useful to explain the creation of complexity in general or life.
Definitions of terms and phrases is the foundational ground for any scientific discourse.
One cannot begin a discussion on any scientific subject (either physical, or, metaphysical) without a vocabulary, and proper definitions of word/phrases.
So:
1) Free will must be properly defined (otherwise, opponents are simply talking past each other); and,
2) The definition must be proved, or, disproved.
Choice is an illusion, a concept, a perceived phenomenon.
All choices are pre-determined.
It was pre- determined that i would choose to comment.
Kait Sith Is consciousness an illusion?
dubunking No, consciousness an experiencing of the mind.
Kait Sith What is the relationship between consciousness and mind? Which laws do consciousness follow?
Kait Sith How do you know that? Is it your belief or is this scientific truth?
To say that conscious thought debunks determinism, is to say the brain has particles that don't follow any set of physical laws. What is a thought? Just neurons firing in a sequence pre-determined by genetics, experience, initial conditions and external stimuli? Where does the element of choice come in?
Just because something is too complex to see a pattern, doesn't mean there isn't one
Isaiah 46:10
"Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish."
determinsm and freewill always be interest topic
4) All this is evidence of our acknowledgement that our lives are Deterministic, that we are on a ride we cannot get off of, and that things happen to one according to past events, and not freely chosen decisions.
The point of the discussion is not whether people make different decisions at different times, or whether different people make different decisions during the same scenario, that’s obvious, yes they do. It’s about whether a persons consciousness has anything to do with the decisions they make, or if subconscious thought, and natural forces inform them.
By using words like ‘could’ all your doing is presupposing that either scenarios could happen without going back and changing previous causes.
Most great philosophers studied deeply science of their time to produce philosophy
If someone claims that quantum probabilistic ranges are free will,
the he claims we have control over quantum mechanical laws.
do we consciously change the laws of quantum mechanics
or we are part of it?
I ask this professor
the only freewill that matters is legal freewill, ie, your choices (no matter how made) were not externally coerced nor internally corrupted by systemic damage. Unpredictability is a physical reality, but its not knowable if true randomness actually exists, consequently PRE-determination can never be proven... however in most cases reality happens too fast for our relatively slow conscious awareness to have any actual effect. Our consciousness seems to be part of our archival system tagging events emotionally and creating a story of why we did it for later retrieval rather than determining what we actually do.
3) This is reflected in our taking charge of him and restricting him, it is an acknowledgement that he cannot help himself so that we must do it. His lack of culpability is reflected in our unwillingness to apply torture or other cruel or unusual "punishments" to alter his motivations. We recognize that he can't help himself and so that would be unfair, and we recognize such things as the Inquisition to have been immoral.
What going to happen is going to happen nothing can stop determinism and your choice is deterministic
Totally agreed! Ethical (moral) responsibility is NOT contingent upon free will.
1) Because there is not such thing as free will (of course, a proper definition must be established here).
2) More importantly is the fact that free will is not the prerequisite for responsibility. A lawgiver and the law is the only prerequisite.
Nice observation. It does seem to beg the question, doesn't it? As in, he seems to assume his preferred conclusion by choosing (freely) to phrase it that way.
The concept of self does exist, it's what separates one person from everyone else, if one wants to make a change in the world they have to recognize what separates them from everybody else. People who believe in "Causality" are followers while people who believe in "Choice" are leaders, when considering the definitions it makes sense: if you think things operate on cause and effect than reactions are all you'll do but if you understand the ability to choose you can choose your options
Great lecture, and great philosophical arguments in the comments..
The immobilization and unification of the world:
We know that matter want to find immobilization by knowing how our happiness works and we have to remember that we human are made of matters. Happiness is a state that we continuously want to feel. Which mean we want a immobilization state, because in a none immobilization state we are not satisfied, if we still have movement which mean we still have a goals, it mean we have to satisfy our goals to have none and find total immobilization. In that theory we would think that death is the perfect immobilization and total happiness but even in death matter has movement. So in order to find perfect happiness, matter has to continuously assemble itself in one single point where it will create the perfect immobilization and unification.
Well this is the theory that is really vulgarize and simplified by all me.
Trying to open door B which is locked, is a different action from trying to open door A which is open. While the end result might be the same, situation 1 and situation 2 are different and if you wanted to say you had no choice, you would say there would be no different situation.
That someone's future actions can be determined before him or her does it. That it's in a nutshell.
The only two things that could cause someone to do or think something are nature and nurture. If you disagree, what else could cause someone to do or think something? If you agree, how could free will be real when the only two things that cause us to do or think anything (nature and nurture) are things we had no choice over?
There is no way (that I can think of at least) that determinism can be the only way that anything can happen.
Determinism says everything that happens happens because something else happened. But if that is the case, how could the first thing that ever happened, happen? However, this first happening set off a domino effect that is the reason why we are here now.
In regards to the Uncertainty Principle--which I think I wrapped my head around but please correct me if I am wrong--it seems to be the random finger that pushes that first domino. But afterwards, the series of dominoes falling will begin, and continue.
Basically what I am trying to say is that maybe not everything is under determinisms tight grip, but what is excluded from determinism will only start new series of events, or merge with other domino trails and become one entire process.
I have been determined to be free
I think this should be settled once and for all, there is no such thing as free will. I think the debate should be, should we pretend that there is free will or not.
shapaco89 I agree. We are completely at the mercy of our environment and personal preferences & experiences. To pretend otherwise is to close your mind or make up something you simply *like* better. I've had religous people say that god somehow "giving" humans free will then lets that same god sit in judgement of us. They then go on to fail at explaining what free will is, and I narrow it down for them to a spin on a Slot Machine, with random options for a choice based on personal/environmental factors. I then call such a thing nonsense, and they fail to respond. Probably cognitive dissonance kicking in or something.
Deggsey Dinners "To pretend otherwise is to close your mind or make up something you simply like better" - Are you saying one has a choice?!
lsbrother There is no free will only the illusion of it. No I don't think we should pretend there isn't, but it seems some people wouldn't have a problem with it. ("But if it's MY brain making the decisions, dosn't that mean I do have free will?!" etc...)
*No I don't think we should pretend there is.*
shapaco89 But that's incredibly dismissive and there are good arguments on both sides. It should be settled, but by continued discussion, but not because of your bias.
very enlightening... scrutinized the subject very well
With or without quantum randomness the future is unknown. Quantum randomness occurs in the microcosmos. It does not change in any way the repetitive pattern of behaviors found in the macrocosmos. Gravitational attraction, for instance, occurs repetively and is described universally, irrespective of the behavior of quantum elements in the microcosmos.
Go to Oxford University website and type 'General Philosophy'. Then you will see the web page.
Scroll down and download PDF files from the first one on the bottom of the page.
first time hearing about compatibilism, and I can't help but think of the game rock paper scissors...
Nothing can happen without a reason but that reason shouldn't be coloured by anger, jealousy, envy, greed etc. It should be based on moral and spiritual values like love, compassion etc. We are divine by nature but coloured by evil and greedy thoughts. We are self aware of our thoughts. Self awareness creates choices in our mind. We have the freewill to choose between different alternates but must bear the consequences of our actions People with brain defects may not be able to exercise their freewill. None intentional actions done under provocation should be looked in a compassionate way. This world is a stage and we are playing our roles .Our roles are predetermined but how we play our role is in our hand. Quantum science says our mind can influence the outcome of a process. That means we can have influence over our thoughts. It also means we have freewill.
Self does exist, it what separates one person from everyone else, the manifestation of one's individuality. Self doesn't exist to those who don't believe it exist; In my opinion those who can make a change in the world are those who recognize the concept of "Self" therefore they are able to create the dramatic comparison gap between themselves and anybody else. People who believe in "Causality" are followers while people who believe in "Choice" are leaders
If they were conscious, life would have no meaning at all. The fact that we are unaware of the laws that govern us means that we can never actually understand life in a totally deterministic way. This eternal ignorance of the totality of the laws that govern our existence is, from our perspective, free will.
You are making a false contradiction between autonomous choice and determinism. Autonomous choice is a special power outside the laws of physics. You cannot make a choice that you instinctually cannot make or do not want to make. Choices are completely determined. But we only know what choice was determined after the fact, in hindsight. The fact that a choice is completely determined does not invalidate the concept of choice because choice is also a behavior. If you have ever played chess against a computer you know that the computer makes “choices.” The reason why each move is still fundamentally a choice (even though it is completely determined) is because we are aware of it in a context of options and uncertainty. Most options are not viable but we do not know exactly which option the computer will choose. We experience this behavior as choice. The same can be said of human behavior. We cannot know which behavior we are going to make before we consciously make them. Therefore, determinism denies the idea of autonomous choice but not the behavior we label as choice. The same can be said of free will. When we let a dragonfly out of a jar, he fly’s in some crazy pattern amongst the vast sky. The vast amount of options of directions in which the dragonfly could go, and the uncertainty of the determined direction the fly will go gives rise to the experience
of free will
If Door B was locked and Door A was the only path available, you still had a choice and free will to walk through the door, albeit a simple inevitable choice.
So if it came down to dehydrating and dying by staying outside or walking through Door A and committing a crime, you still had a choice to commit the crime but no other possible options were available, therefore determinism is true since it had considerable influences to compel you to choose to commit the crime.
What if one of the laws of nature is that consciousness gives rise to choice? And what does it take for a law of nature to be a 'law'? Many of the things we speak of as laws are really more like habits of nature. The 'law' is derived from the average of various outcomes. Given this, even laws can be indeterminate.
A law of nature is true until disproven. In this case, the law would not be indeterminate, it would cease to be a "law". Scientists are very clear about this. They are still trying to reconcile relativity & quantum mechanics and use caveat when talking about them
Free will implies freedom of choice. People do not choose their genetics, and people do not choose how their brain reacts to different environments. The whole decision making process is a biased one in which it is programmed to respond in a certain way given a certain set of input.
Free will means being able to step beyond past experience. Can you think of a colour you have never seen before? This demonstrates that your brain is limited to past experience.
It seems self-evident to me that I have free will. When confronted with a "choice", there may be circumstancial barriers - objects in the way, ignorance of possible options, time constraints, personal prejudices etc - but, to the extent that there is more than one available option then, clearly, I have a choice. Now, I can't prove that this wasn't determined by a string of prior causes... but no-one can prove it was. In the same way, from first principles, I can't prove that the external world exists. That doesn't mean I should disregard the proposition out of hand. I believe I have free will because that belief accords with my experience, both of myself and my observations of others.
Your belief was determined! : )
Where do your thoughts come from? Are you choosing them? Or do they simply arise in the forefront of your apparent consciousness. The illusion you do not seem to understand is you're not truly conscious at all. It's as if machine sits behind you, taking into consideration many different factors, spitting out little slips of paper as you're confronted with situations that require your action. You read the paper and act accordingly yet somehow seem to disassociate from yourself from the fact that you're not thinking any of this at all. You're just the cloak covering the machine. You're just the cover needed for statistically driven machines to associate with each other or with its surroundings. The interesting question seems to relate more to how and why this cover (or our ego) has developed in the first place.
David Hoggan What is the proof of your assertion?
Ian Wells
sure. If I have free will then I will believe that to be so.
David Hoggan
Asking where one's thoughts come from is not only reductionist but really misses the point. The question is not one of antecedent thoughts but one of choice. The human brain is a remarkably complex organ. To describe it - as I think this is what you were referring to - as a "statistical machine" seems well wide of the mark. Emotions have nothing to do with statistical reasoning. Ethical decisions might - in the sense that one mistakes a probabilistic decision for an ethical one - but this simply denies their very nature. Terms like "the self" are meaningless without notions of choice.
I don't know what consciousness is exactly. However, there does seem to be a difference between those actions my body takes, in a sense, by default (breathing, blinking, digestion etc), and those that are done via some consideration or deliberation (driving, walking, writing etc). I don't see how this distinction is illusory. And I can think of any number of experiments to demonstrate that point.
Ultimately, however, the problem of free will seems to have a rather simple answer. The premise that there is no free will is a philosophical dead end. In this way, it's no different to the problem of the existence of the external world. Or the problem of cause and effect. Or the problem inherent in any axiomatic assumption. In that way, I think Christopher Hitchens had it right: "we have free will because we have no choice but to".
amusing to see the different levels of thought processes and intelligence on youtube. great world.
Last time I checked.. I chose my parents!!! *Raised in an orphanage...*
Determinism only exists in beings or objects not conscious of themselves or the situation. Choices by unconscious beings are influenced by emotion or belief. The conscious being fully understands the ramifications of all options available and can thus eliminate the emotional aspect of decision making. It's not about taking the ice cream or fruit, its about taking the ice cream, fruit, or neither.How can you predict the outcome of an event when the subject has the same understanding of it you do?
is it free will of the infant it's neuronal networks at birth also the shape of it's body?
is it free will the effects of the environment?
is it free will the mechanisms of the brain and it's chemistry?
Will is probabilistical.
Each possible action could have been expressed by infinite alternative ones.
As people develop and the brain gets molded by the environment and it's chemistry,
that infinities mathematically become smaller.
Are smaller infinities "free will" either an unavoidable free fall with some additional probabilistic choreography?
Are probabilistic ranges free will?
Does the subject have control over contingent outcomes, or simply
it's consciousness compresses an infinity of probable outcomes
to a smaller ranged infinity?
Just because you think you found a situation where something was predetermined doesn't mean it must always be so. If white swan is not black in color doesn't mean all swans are not black. You would need to find every single swan to conclude that.
If all things remaining the same except for the changes necessary for me to be able to do otherwise, I could do otherwise, then I can be free and determinism can be true all the same.
And if door B is in fact impossible to go through but I can freely choose door A, then I can be free though there was no possibility for me to go through door B; so, incompatibilists must be wrong.
Hope I have misunderstood it.
We have the ability to choose. However, that choice is not a "free will" choice. Our choices are made based upon reasons, previous conditions, our experiences, and a myriad of other states of the Universe at the time of this choice. Conditions NOT of our choosing.
Probably too late for your paper but I believe he was referring to quantum mechanics. However neurons are too large to facilitate quantum interactions, but that's why he's a philosopher and not a physicist.
Suppose there is free will. What is the entity that exercises that freedom. An "I"? What is that? If "I" make a non deterministic choice, what determines that choice? Something must do it.Every event MUST be determined. Or what would be the basis of its ocurremce?
Occasional zoom on slides would have helped greatly. No criticism just a suggestion. Thank you for knowledgeable video lectures...
What he means by neither:
The world is completely determined by the laws of nature (no free will). However the the laws of nature involve quantum randomness which means the future is not known (no determinism.
freewill is wasted energy?
our perception/ senses are an illusion of the brain also... so could free will be an illusion of choice, when determinism may already have determined past, present, future or do they really exist together?
if free will exist alongside determinism, then there's more to the human brain than vibrations/ a signals/ frequencies determining the program itself to be played.
I'd like to know why he doesn't believe in determinism and how it's connected with modern physics
"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants". - Arthur Schopenhauer
EVERY reaction HAS an equal or opposite reaction.. I believe determinism and free will occur at the same time. many ancient symbolism show all opposite Co exist with each.. good/ bad.. black/ white.. nothingness/ somethingness.. the universe shows to allow opposites to become one with each other.
''Why is it so difficult for people to realize that free will is just an illusion created in the brain?''
Because human animals have an emotional investment in believing that they are not simply puppets of nature and this clouds their ability to think rationally and logically about these kinds of issues
''All choices are unconscious processes outputted to awareness after the event where it is woven into a 'story' to justify it''
Consciousness must be causally efficacious but still no free willl
he makes lectical analysis based on word thinking,
not on physical details but details of speech.
speech is an instrument, not the real world.
he mentioned we have two doors A and B, and B is locked.
Of course all will have to select A, but some will waist more time,
others will get annoyed. I mean lectically we can create a simplified world,
but the physical word is wider than the lectical interpretation.
Axel Bliss Or vice versa? Witness how hard it is for a film to portray a novel.
5) The only sense in which compatibility applies is in recognizing that we have a fraudulent sense that because we do not yet know the future and cannot predict it, that we have some moral responsibility for what happens next, and can actually make different decisions than we otherwise would have, and we do not.
2) As for responsibility, one does not have to be held as responsible to be jailed merely because he is proven to tend to do offensive or dangerous things to others. The why is irrelevant unless you adhere to the Abrahamic concept of sin and blame and culpability. While our offense against his offensive nature might deter or dissuade him, he still cannot do other than what he is going to do if we have not changed his mind, But it is still not actually his "fault" that he was not dissuaded.
very smart
Yes we are determined, but we are also infinitely ignorant. We can never actually understand everything about the laws that govern us, and because of the infinite nature of the search for these laws, there is always something we do not know. That variable, namely the eternal unknown of life, is where our illusion of free will actually becomes free will. We are free because we are gifted with an illusion that is eternal, in the same way that the wonder of a magic trick lies in the illusion
Did the choices I made yesterday determine the choices I make today?
They definitely had a role to play in what choices were made available today; subsequently, yesterday's free will is [today] snuffing some of our free will for tomorrow, etc... "We didn't start the fire..."~Billy Joel
Anyone wanna debate the existence of causality?
Chase Allen yea but influence and persuasion only seem to work with free will and not pre determinism tho
+Aaron Temple Wow, that was stupid. No nincompoop, that's not how it works at all. Determinism means you have a limited ability to think. That including what you know, you make whatever decision that you do based on reason. In fact, if you want to prove that determinism is false, you have to live your life without reason. The trick is to not use your head which is deterministic. Well, off with you now.
***** An interesting definition of determinism. So then what would you say is the meaning of causality?
Let's say there is no such thing as free will. If everything is reducible to physics/math then how do those things, that lack self awareness/ consciousness/ etc, decide from the beginning how everybody is going to interact with each other, with nature, how they are going to respond to certain events, etc.
This comes off as way less "there are underlying psychological reasons for why we cannot control what we do" and more of an argument for some concept of destiny. We have the ability to weigh the outcome of decisions but regardless of what outcomes we consider it is possible that we go against our instincts. It has nothing to do with "the illusion of free will" as much as it is a differentiation between instinct and going against your instincts and acknowledging that an individual is capable of doing both.
+Garlick Zulander Then you prove yourself a psychopath, bound by nature to act in evil. Actions being a subset of events. And one deals with psychopaths by putting them away, or down.
+UnrationedRationale
It's not impossible to predict what someone's choice will be, scientists have actually ran the tests and they were able to predict it.
randomness is deliberate thus NOT free will
even if select things at random, you have no control over it
you simply can claim that you selected deliberately that method of picking options,
but that is still probabilistic inside the subjects neuronal networks
I cannot see how free will can exist in our reality. Sure there's Schrödinger's cat, but that does not mean that the cat has not died or lived- it just means we do not know. This does not disprove that reality collapses to one outcome.
+dog_gazed_ duct-tape Interesting that you say that. Would you believe that Schrödinger's cat is based on not knowing where an electron is? It's like me looking for you in a game of hide and seek. If you are in the closet and I open the closet, then you are alive. If you aren't in the closet and I open the closet, then you are dead. If I don't open the closet then you are both dead and alive. And it's all thanks to some fantastically stupid people who have no business holding their occupation and title, mindlessly nodding their heads, and repeating what they last heard.
What about quantum superposition
And now the revival of pilot wave theory of quantum mechanics which leads to a deterministic model, I wonder which will be shown to be the case.
Quantum mechanics will most probably be better explained once we understand the concept of additional dimensions (between 10 & 11 the last I heard). Imagine you are an ant living on a flat piece of paper, and you don't have the ability to look upwards nor the ability to jump into the air. You can only rotate or move forwards, backwards, leftwards, or rightwards.
One day one of your more evolved ant friends invents a pogo stick which allows him to jump high into the air. As you don't have the ability to look upwards, from your perspective your friend disappears when he jumps and reappears when he lands. It seems like magic to you. But certainly from your friend's perspective, there is no magic, and he has not disappeared or reappeared --- he just has access to another space dimension that you don't yet have access to.
FreeGoeland We have a very good understanding of higher dimensions. Mathematicians have developed an extremely rich theory for spaces with extra dimensions (it's called linear algebra if you're interested). The problem isn't whether we can theorize the existence of additional physical dimensions, it's whether we can actually observe them. If we can't observe them by a controlled experiment, they may as well not be there.
''The notion of "self" is also an illusion.''
I agree. No fixed unitary immutable being unchanging at its heart. No free will. Just chemical sentient scum budding off each other and dying . It's depressing. He who increaseath his knowledge, increaseth his sorrow.
many people with disinhibited limbic connections to the frontal lobe,
support a likable opinion to support - not only here of course
I disagree with the door analogy. Its not ONE event but a sequence of events. You were not free to choose a door (imo) but there were biases and influences that lead you in one direction over the other (preferences for left or right, colour of door, etc) and once you reached the door, you THEN find it locked and must 'decide' to go to door A instead (or stay where you were). While the overall event is deterministic in the final result of going through A, each part is ALSO deterministic.
indresting
2) If we use this definition for "free will" (=not complete determinateness of thoughts, beliefs and feelings), then logically compatibilism (soft determinism) should not be possible anymore.
This Mad Scientist who keeps turning up must be stopped!
+Paul Bottomley "Bottomley. Paul Bottomley."
we don't positively know that sub-atomic particles move randomly.
I believe that, except for personal mythologies, all of us will die never knowing the meaning and purpose of human life. What say you?
Prediction is entirely unrelated to the problem of free will. It wouldn't matter if we knew everything or nothing, what we do is what we were always going to do because all real outcomes are unary, there is only one future, and whatever one you wind up in, that was the one that was always going to happen for you. This is also why QM uncertainty gives us no help either. Whatever happens, it was always going to happen by definition, and whether it was random or not this is still true. Multiple possible futures are not real, they are just ideas. And likewise, you are fully Determined because whatever you decide you were always going to decide, and for the same exact reasons. You can see this at work regarding "changing your mind". You don't change your mind, other circumstances do, and once changed you are no more able to change it back on a whim than you were to change it before it changed on its own. We do NOT think our own thoughts, rather our thoughts think US!! If you cannot change even the tiniest thing you truly believe, without lying and just claiming you did, then in what sense do you have any "free will"?? The thing people never get is that the very definition of the Self is that which the Self cannot change, it can't change itself. Everything that changes the Self is Other, "outside" the Self, even later cogitation that causes us to change our mind is a mental process we have no control over. They operate on their own. We change each other, but even then, we can't help doing it to each other, what we say and do is beyond any control, but we do not and cannot change ourselves. This is the secret definition of Self and Others. If we could decide what we think we could decide to think we were somewhere much nicer than here, and if we could decide to believe that we would believe it beyond any contradiction, and then while we were in our other psychotic world of imagination we might die or be harmed, and we wouldn't know it. This life is a movie, a thrill ride, an adventure to assuage the inherent boredom implicit in infinity.. Enjoy the ride!
+rstevewarmorycom You presume this to be the case by way of rationalization. But the universe seldom responds to our rationalization. For example, you say that QM doesn't resolve the fact that one future exists (presumably because uncertainty is relative to our perception, and not the facts of reality independent of our perception). You then say multiple futures are not real, they're just ideas (which is just an idea). But you can't know this isn't the case. The mechanisms which determine futures and how many realities there are, are beyond your ken. Some interpretations of QM include multiverse hypothesis, and if so, which future will happen may not be determined until the determining event.
You're also wrong about the self not being able to change the self. You're rooting "self" in some kind of stone object which is merely occuring. In fact the brain is sculpted by experiences, it wires itself in accordance with it's stimulation. And thought is a kind of stimulation. You can change yourself through concentrated effort over time because you have a thinking program capable of self-stimulation.
There are limitations in this... It takes time, and your thoughts are dependent on your knowledge and nature. You can only know what you learn, and your nature is inherited. But given those limitations you can still modify yourself, just as reality can modify you.
You are not just a passive passenger. You are an active participant. You might have only a limited, conditional will going through it all. But there-in you may alter yourself and your reality over time. Whether those alterations are determined and will happen, or are undetermined and may happen, is unknown. You should not feign knowledge you have not!
+Spencer Ferri What you are is what I would be if I were you, this is a tautology. What you are is not subject to your whims, rather your whims are a product of your fate as well, of your accumulated nature. You are no more in charge of the way you modify yourself due to experience than you are in charge of your heart beating. Free will is not an illusion at all, it is simply a wrong notion. When you blame someone for what they are you are merely attempting to have an effect so as to coerce them to change and do otherwise, but if you do then don't imagine that they are just being stubborn and that they have some voluntary "power to change" they are not availing themselves of, because they don't, rather you have to take responsibility that if you were unable to change them by your actions that it is your actions and understanding that are deficient, and not some character flaw in them. They may indeed have character flaws, but they are not in charge of them and you don't have access to them either, except by your actions, and those are out of YOUR control. A person can only change in the way he IS changed by things beyond his control. Self-reflection does change us, but it does so exactly in the way forces outside our control do, and in fact, it is just ANOTHER of those forces that are outside our control. There is no "control", it doesn't exist, it is a nasty myth invented to justify inquisitions, revenge, and tortures used against heretics and unfortunates. It is a myth that permits evil to be excused. It is a cheesy irrational justification that permits the frustration of perpetrators to be taken out on victims.
Spencer Ferri QM isn't a way out of Determinism. All futures are unary, there is only one outcome. It doesn't matter at all whether it got there from Newtonian dynamics or from quantum statistics. What will be will be. MWI solves many problems that wave function collapse is plagued with. Saying all futures are just ideas is saying that we are just ideas, and when examined closely reality is nothing more than one observer's memories, the future never happens, the present is merely the most recent past, and the past is memory. When our memory grows in size but retains past information it feels like time exists and flows. It does not. Only the current memory updated exists at all. Our perceptions are nothing more than memories of the ideas of perceiving through numerous modes or senses. Reality has no more concrete nature than a thought. Any infinite multiverse or multipsism, costs nothing, it is all thought alone. Knowing any of this for certain is not necessary. If the math works, it means the math works.
Spencer Ferri Your insistence on self-control/self-modification is mere posturing without justification. There is no way to show that. Determinism overcomes all arguments. Whatever happens is what was always going to happen. If it were not, then it would not have, and something else would have, and IT would be what was always going to happen. That logic is totally irrefutable. Whatever change you imagine "you" have effected in yourself you didn't cause, because "you" IS the thing that was caused. A thing cannot cause itself.
rstevewarmorycom
I'd like a better argument for my insistence that self-modification is mere posturing. Because as far as I'm aware, the human brain responds to stimulus by threading neurons into synaptic networks. If thought is a stimulation, then it'd stand to reason you'd influence yourself by way of thought. Nor is this in any way contradictory to a deterministic principle, since all this is still a function of a mechanics. The conscious thought has no control over the underlying synaptic mechanics which are merely occurring. Physical events which facilitate semantic comprehension.
"I" am the program, the program has components. A component of the program is thinking about itself. It's not the ship, but it is the navigator. It can't determine which way the winds blow, it has to put up with the facts of navigation and can't stray from it's mechanics. It can't sail against the wind. But it can make due within those limitations.
If you think your philosophical rationalizations adjust the observed facts of reality, you're merely another idealist. Which is incompatible with determinism. If you accept a determinism then you must accept the facts of reality and you cannot allow your rationalizations to be unaligned with them. If you tell me you tell me my day to day empirical experience, as it aligns with empirical observation, is an illusion then you're making an inherently untrustworthy proposal often used by those of faith to justify their beliefs (which your position strikes me as).
I don't understand how you can be both a compatibilist and not believe in determinism? If you don't believe in determinism that how can you believe that the same thing you don't believe in is compatible with free will?
Cynthia M You are making a false contradiction between autonomous choice and determinism. Autonomous choice is a special power outside the laws of physics. You cannot make a choice that you instinctually cannot make or do not want to make. Choices are completely determined. But we only know what choice was determined after the fact, in hindsight. The fact that a choice is completely determined does not invalidate the concept of choice because choice is also a behavior. If you have ever played chess against a computer you know that the computer makes “choices.” The reason why each move is still fundamentally a choice (even though it is completely determined) is because we are aware of it in a context of options and uncertainty. Most options are not viable but we do not know exactly which option the computer will choose. We experience this behavior as choice. The same can be said of human behavior. We cannot know which behavior we are going to make before we consciously make them. Therefore, determinism denies the idea of autonomous choice but not the behavior we label as choice. The same can be said of free will. When we let a dragonfly out of a jar, he fly’s in some crazy pattern amongst the vast sky. The vast amount of options of directions in which the dragonfly could go, and the uncertainty of the determined direction the fly will go gives rise to the experience
of free will
+Cynthia M Compatibilism is NOT a belief that free will is compatible with Determinism. It is the belief that the perception of free will is a mistake that arises BECAUSE of Determinism. Or rather than the only "free will" we have is the impression of free will from not being restrained.
Yes but we can never understand each and every one of the laws that govern our decisions, because the search for this knowledge is infinite. The eternal presence of ignorance of the laws that govern us, means that we can never even begin to comprehend what determines us. Since we cannot know everything that governs us, and free will is an illusion, then our very existence is also an illusion, because we are governed by eternally unknown forces.
In Cosmology, the real question is whether or not you believe the human mind (and any mind, in reality) was somehow brought about in a way that is different than everything else in the universe. How is it that the mind can truly act freely when seemingly nothing else does? Einstein, himself, reasoned this was not possible and felt that free will (like time, itself) is merely an illusion. There was a time in the past when we feel with near certainty the universe contained nothing living and everything was necessarily determined by a past cause. What prior cause brought about and enabled this completely unheard of mechanism in the universe (a brain that enables free will)? How is it even possible for strict cause and effect (our universe in the past) to somehow bring about free will? I side with Einstein and actually believe that everything is determined. Causal determinism rules the universe from its very onset. Further, (as Quantum mechanics reveals) probabilities of an event happening are the closest we can come to determining events in truly miniscule areas of the universe. FOR NOW. It is just that we have not and/ or cannot ever understand the cause well enough to predict (or determine) the outcome. In reality, I believe everything in the universe must happen as it does. EVERYTHING. Time, like free will, is merely an illusion.
+nycinstyle Well said.
+nycinstyle But Einstein also said, "Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being." -- The oddity is that anyone should think we must be free from reliable cause and effect (determinism) in order to be "truly" free. In a truly indeterministic universe there is no freedom to do anything, because one cannot reliably cause anything to happen. In a deterministic universe I pick an apple and have an apple in my hand. In an indeterministic universe I pick an apple and gravity reverses. See the problem? -- So, although it seems ironic, ALL practical freedoms REQUIRE determinism. Therefore, freedom from causation is an oxymoron. And, therefore, the "free" in free will can never rationally be taken to imply "free from causation". And since it cannot, it does not. -- To be meaningful, the word "free" need only refer to a single constraint: the prisoner was freed from his handcuffs, the bird was freed from its cage. In the case of free will, the "free" means "free of external coercion". -- As long as "that which is us" is the same as "that which made the choice", we are said to have free will. But when the Boston Marathon bombers hijacked a car and forced the driver at gunpoint to aid them in their escape, he was not acting of his own free will, and so he was not charged with "aiding and abetting" the crime.
unknowable..next
he does not include all contemporary quantum interpretations as Hume did with his contemporary science
the point is not to select one opinion but REVEAL all options
it is NOT a complete analysis
i repeat - quantum interpretations might be used as he wises
The notion of "self" is also an illusion. Lie back and enjoy the ride coz there's nothing you can do about it baby! but what is time? the process of what will be, becoming what is, becoming what was.
No you are not alone. The argument is deeply flawed because of precisely what you mention. I think it is hard/impossible for anyone to let go of the idea of free will properly and without becoming a fatalist unless they have already transcended their ego (which is just a strengthening of neuronal activity from left to right sided brain). They are defending the ego by believing in free will. Free will belief/ego is the root of all human suffering. Be at peace. :)
6) "Otherwise would have" is a fraudulent understanding of reality based on our inability to predict the future, nothing more. We decide based on past experience, but we cannot change what we will inevitably decide.
1) I'm somewhat surprised that the compatibilists (soft determinists) main argument lies in the definition and understanding of the expression of "free choice", "free will" etc. It becomes mainly a game of words instead of a scientific discourse.
I think that most people would agree that if a person's thoughts, beliefs and feelings are completely predetermined to then there is no such thing as free will.
Philosophers middle the issue. There is no free will the way people typically honk about it I.e. that the person or the self is making the decision whether to eat The cookie or the vegetables. People experience it in a way that FEELS they are choosing but they are not.
did you forgot that we are animals too? choosing is just a product of unconcious processes presented to conscious awareness
The notion of "self" is also an illusion. There is no ONE part of the brain that is "the self."
I just don't see how the compatibility can be understood being the incompatibility so easy too see and the other is just play on words. I can't seem to find someone to agree with. I guess I'm a liberalist.
i completely agree with you.
quantum mechanics is probabilistic, but there are many interpretations.
One is of invinite variant solutions occuring at constantly newborn universes,
and the other main one is the optimum solution single universe.
Both are against free will. The optimum quantum path is totally deterministic
when a wavefunction collapses. The infinite quantum birth of universes at each moment of action is also absolutely deterministic as a whole of solutions,
but probabilistic to our sigle universial version we live.
Because Hume was not informed of modern quantum mechanics,
and because many PhD. of Philosophy have not read the various quantum interpretations at a deep level, they tend to interpret the probabilities
as free will of the subject.
Probabilities have nothing to do with free will.
Only we can compress with our will the probabilities
to a shorter infinity. But a PhD. professor has to study
basic mathematic ideas, not types, general theory.
Most PhDs of Philosophy hate do read deep their subject,
and they do not reveal all aspects of modern philosophy and
science, not because they are not able to thing,
simple because the do not care about philosophy so much
to spend time on the subject. I do not claim they owe to support
a singe idea, simply to analyze all the relevant information.
As a matter of fact some philosophers already have included
more analytical layers, so when you watch in a lecture only a
part of the whole picture, you get disappointed.
+Peter M
Ok let's say you chose red, my computer predicted red, and your computer predicted red. It's entirely possible. Now lets say you chose blue, my computer predicted red, and your computer predicted red. My computer was wrong, yours was right. Lets say you chose red, My computer predicted blue, and your computer predicted red. Both computers were wrong. What part is impossible? If both computers work, they will be accurate, how is that impossible?
Free will is not an illusion, it is nonsense. Would I first chose my will freely and then will it? How would free will be determined, if it is not supposed to be determined? What counts as free, in our wills? This is not an empyrical issue. It has nothing to do with how the brain works. It is a conceptual issue, most of all a language issue arising from a misuse of the word free in a context where it does not belong and does not make sense. Philosophers love to do it.
This is such a pointless argument. There is no choice. The programming, that is our brain, is taking action without any conscious consent, based upon a genetically determined set of rules and our present / past / and statistically derived future experiences feeding said input to generate a probable output. The illusion is that we have consciousness altogether. Although I dislike Dennet's compatibilist views, he makes an interesting comparison relating stage magic. Our consciousness, which can be compared to the almost mysterious illusion that is the performance or act, is really nothing more than a predetermined set of actions by the magician which so happens to create something that "seems" without natural/possible cause. I find it to be actually very freeing being able to grasp this concept. Although I realize I have no control over my life, I also know that I'm not built to disassociate my ego from this mathematically/ statistically driven universe. One might argue a robot gaining "consciousness" for the first time will likely ponder the same thought. Just as I'm not able to be anything more than the programming that lies beneath the hood, the robot will also be unable to escape its own paradigm. However it seems likely that as the robot is able to understand it's own constraints, it may (and I haven't completely thought this though) be able to modify its own programming ( as we will likely never be able) to improve in a way that eventually propagates true free will.
In any case I just feel more relaxed. In my life there is less of a rejection from what is. Again, I can't pull the cover off my own illusion, but the knowledge has certainly improved my quality of life. I realize that more knowledge, improves the set actions I am capable of doing, so I'm able to experience less stress while attempting to achieve the interests "I" have adopted during my life. Life is certainly a meaningless illusion, yet more often than not an enjoyable one.
The robot stuff blew my mind. But I don't think understanding the constraints (by which you must mean all the causes that have made a robot into what it is) will set its mind free since the causality and the lack of choice will still be there. A modified local programming is part of the global programming nonetheless.
I love how you say that life is meaningless yet still live. Isn't there a contradiction? Depends on the meaning of 'meaning', but at least for me, the fact that I live and want to live means that life has meaning, which is to live. I hope I don't sound preachy here.
It is amazing that people who do not think they have free will yet make statements such as, 'I realise that more knowledge, improves the set actions I am capable of doing,,,, while attempting to achieve the interests 'I' have adopted during my life.
In a world with no free will, not only people cannot make their own decisions, it makes no sense to say one realises anything, one just react; no sense to say improves anything, one just did; no sense to say capable to doing anything; one just did, attempting to do anything one just did. One is just like a rock being kicked around by circumstances, period. Would we say a rock would realise anything, attempt to do anything, improves anything, capable to do anything, no. The ultimate attempt to reduce everything in this word to materials is to say we are just sophisticated rocks. Amazing how many people fall for this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
Those who genuinely believe they have no free will in fact make no effort at all. Unless they are genuine about it and ended up lying in bed all day, they all end up with this contradictory nonsense. Luckily, they still behave normally i.e. they wake up and make decisions and get annoyed if others contradict them. What a fast.
dubunking Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Listen, all I'm saying is that our ability to think and make choices is determined by the programmed computer that's sitting in our head. Those choices and thoughts are determined by the sensory input that you've accumulated over your life, and the genetical programming that you've inherited. If you want to call yourself your brain, fine. You have free will. Congratulations. However, I'm more interested in how the mechanism works as a whole. There are many things we can control in our lives, yet our brain is not one of them. Our brain underlies our sense of self, and our entire ability to control. For all intents and purposes, of course we're going to live our lives as though we have free will. It's impossible to live any other way. However, the super analytical machine sitting between our eyes has also given us the ability to draw empirical conclusions. And from the evidence being generated, and also just rational thinking, there doesn't seem to be any magic at play. Just think about it for moment. What does free will even mean? How could free will even work or ever exist? It's not even an interesting argument anymore. You just seem to be so overwhelmed by the process of thought that you're willing to just stamp free will (or magic) on the entire argument so as to be comfortable in knowing that you have control. It's no different than a theologian contemplating existence and bull-headedly stamping GOD on the entire event. It's an argument from ignorance. Consciousness on the other hand, the "magic" that underlies the programming, the basis for existence itself, is a far more interesting discussion, one I wouldn't even pretend to grasp in the slightest. However, our ability to make use of it - or BE it - distinguishes us as being more than just a "sophisticated rock". Honestly, I'm not even phased by your hostility towards this argument. You couldn't be any other person at this exact moment in time. But sometimes letting go of your EGO for moment in order to gain some depth can be uplifting. Give it a shot.
***** I didn't make the argument. I responded.
Do you really feel a deterministic stance has no bearing on our understanding and relation to the world?
reading too much into the experiments you are referring to, in the context of the free will debate, is probably not such a good idea at this stage. The subject was made to make a decision with - for them - no effect whatsoever, they had no emotional involvement, there was no gain to be had, it couldnt affect anyone else in the world, you get the idea. it's great, dont get me wrong, i cant wait to see where it goes, but it's a bit thin really to start screamin about it.
The answer is relative: Wheather you conclude that you are capable of free will or the opposite, that you have no such capacity is relative to the conclusion you wish to support next. For example, if you have a private interest to justify the current fundamental structure of all legal systems in the world and - then you would create reasoning that would make it so. If, on the other hand, you were privately interested in another thing, let's say on the answering of the question what was before God, and whether the time is indeed absolute (default state of the cosmos); then you might conclude that there is no free will in humans.
The answer is dependent, relative to the next thing you want to conclude after this (knowingly or unconsciously; based on belief or their hierarchy, etc... the factors on which your choice of the next thing you want to support, is based upon countless factors; always dynamic...).
Therefore, in the absolute sense, booth possible answers must be absolutely false.
They are false, but, they can be practically useful to us humans, and therefore threaten them as if they were true - we imagine them to be true (often even believe them to be so). That's our essence, the stories that we try to solve - not thinking about the fact that they can not, ever, be solved - and in this process of endless human strive towards an answer - believing that there must be an answer in there somewhere we do something very special. Can you guess what that is? Imagine and by doing so create new things, ideas, systems etc... We create things that had not existed in the cosmos beforehand (not in actuality they didn't anyway). We limit ourselves, we limit and base our imagining process within some boundaries (did Snow White eat one bit, or were there two - perhaps there was only half, etc...); and we expand upon it, discuss points and argue of who is right... And by doing so we come to some unexpected new realization - for example, the invention of fractions (mathematics). There could be that she ate only a tenth of an apple.
Somehow, it seems, evolution had chosen us such that we like to imagine stories within stories and take these as the truth. Well, if such thinking genes are beneficial, then they must be good. Good, true, factual (whatever the word) - relatively - to the next thing that is sought after (perhaps the algorithmic play of the DNA competition) - and the answer to the question of what the DNA's goal is (for the lack of a better word) we must again take in mind its relative link with the thing that is trying to be realized on even more macro scale.
Well, I'd say that the question is important only as far as we try to do what humans do and imagine our truth deeper, creating new things at the end; while thinking all the while that it's for our own benefit that we find the answer, that we find the truth. While staying ignorant of the fact that we're just an organ in a bigger scheme which we don't want to or are not able to perceive. For we have no interest in doing so (just like a cattle on its way from being bred to its quite sure conclusion - in the slaughterhouse and on our plates, and on, and on).
We think ourselves so very superior to ants. We think how 'primitive', how stupid the ants are... while omitting the fact that we are the same, just exactly the same. Living our life, thinking that we are selfish, thinking that we are 'living for our own benefit, for our own amusement', thinking that we will reap the final reward, ... We're both being played by a complex, constantly evolving entity - just like our liver organ is being played for the bigger body - our body, the complex, ever-evolving system, and so on, and so on...
If you ask me what the primal cause is, I would be satisfied with the answer: the interaction between the constant states of the cosmos, which by interacting with each other creates new things of two kinds. New actual things and the new potential things - given the infinite time state. What is the deeper level I can not say, maybe there is more, maybe not; but what can be concluded from this is that not even 'God' can stop this whole thing. God can not kill himself, even if he wanted to, he's only able to create. And through us, he has been enabled to create via imagination - faster, and more complex things. Maybe some console his 'eternal sentence' to be for all time.
i dont think that any of the philosophical approaches to free will completeley reflect the way that we use the term nowadays, because we use it in a vague and not a consistent way. Also, I dont reject libertarian free will as contradictory(im not sure whether it is) but as an unnecessary assumption that is simply not the case.
the question about moral responsibility decides whether we should treat punishment as retribution or as necessary harm.
And since it is nothing but bad luck that criminals have the characteristics and circumstances that cause them to do a crime i think we should treat punishment as necessary harm. also, if i would be in the exact same situation as the criminal, i would be caused to do exactly the same thing. how can I blame someone for making that choice?
then we get into whether or not mind controlled people still act with free will. independent of what exactly is meant by free will, i dont see any reason to claim that being coerced by a person which is also determined by causality is any different than being determined by causality alone. that seems like an arbitrary distinction to me.
dings da Do you ever make decisions that you will do A instead of B? Or is it luck that determines everything that you do?
dubunking Surely I make decisions myself in accordance with my desires. However, I am part of the causal chain and dont choose my own desires. The cause for my desires is outside of my reach, so I'm not (in the retributivist sense) responsible for it and thus not for my actions either.
dings da You have asserted a philosophical belief. That is about it. It is not a scientific theory and since it cannot be falsified.
dubunking Does that mean that you do believe in incompatibilist/libertarian free will? why? I dont think we need it to explain anything we observe.
dubunking I believe we have free will yes. We are acutely conscious of it. Consciousness is the only thing we are sure about. Everything flows from it. At the end of the day, it is a philosophical belief. So is yours. End of story.
12:41 is a good illustration. There's a free-will event available, it's just unreasonable. The outcome is essentially determined by previous factors. However, rogue agents exist, which gives rise to the compatibilist view of determined behavior. A rogue decision is unlikely because it requires unreasonable willpower to act outside the predictable, but the victim could let himself get shot or throw his wallet or any number of things that don't align with his upbringing and prior determined behavior. Also the mugger could have a change of heart and give the man his gun, or shoot himself. Compatibilism is a rational merging of determinism (which isn't viable alone since we can all be rogue agents when we want) and free will (which doesn't account for the system-scale epidemiology of human behaviors).
Not true. There are people that can have the exact same circumstances but with different outcomes.
Your point doesn't concern my previous comment. I was clarifying the compatibilist perspective. Your assertion would actually fit fine into my framework: that free will and determinism co-exist in the universe. It just happens that I disagree with you regardless of relevance or irrelevance.
Let's say you found identical twins from the same household, same education, same everything. They both have unique life experiences because life is an excessively complex experiment, and even with the same DNA there's no way to have a control group. Again, this doesn't concern my comment on compatibilism, so I'm not sure why you posted it.
1) He doesn't understand modern physics. He is assuming QM rescues us from Determinism, and it does not! There is NO requirement that causation be predictable to be Deterministic. Even if the world were entirely unpredictable, outcomes would be unary. There is never more than one experienced future or past. There is only one outcome in a being's life, and thus it is Determined because it cannot happen to one person in a manner other than it did.
Our destiny is determined in a sense by the choice made by Adam and Eve, yet we can choose to follow the guidelines given by scripture. They both exist together, and our choices determine our future. Hmmm.
Determinism requires that everything has a cause. You can't then claim how your desire and reasoning decide what you will choose being compatible with free will because then all I have to say your desire had a cause. Your reasoning had a cause. And whatever you could argue that was caused for your desire also had a prior cause. There is clearly no free will there. Compatiblist position is therefore wrong.
Does it depend on what causes it?
Also, while it seems ok to say my desire has causes, it is much harder (in fact highly unlikely) to say my desire has one cause only? If my desire is caused by many causes, some of which seem to be unknown to anyone, would it render the statement that all my desires are caused merely a belief?
dubunking It is irrelevant if your action or decision has multiple causes when looking deeper into the past. The point still stands that everything has a cause.
dubunking Does the universe has a cause? If so, what is it?
I don't know and that doesn't matter to my original point which was *if* determinism is true it requires everything to have a cause *then* compatibilism with free will is false.
Determinism does require everything to have a cause.
You said if reasoning has a cause, then it is determined. However, the free will camp will say, sure, it has a cause, it is cause by one being conscious and consciously (or at least partially so) making a choice, that is usually what free will means.
You example of desire has a cause is not sufficient to dispel free will unless one that is choosing has no control over his/her desires.
As a philosophical challenge and thought this topic is incredibly interesting and qwerky, but in practice I have a hard time understanding what the fuzz is all about. People are concerned about putting criminals behind bars because their actions are predetermined. Why bother? If hard determinism is actually true, so that criminals can't be held responsible for their actions, then surely we can't be held responsible for locking them up either. From a purely practical perspective it seems to me that the problem is no problem at all.
Neither the criminal, nor the society that locks up the criminal are to blame for their actions. But surely that is itself the problem. Law is devoid of a rational basis if choice is denied.
Well, I can see that it's still a problem. What I mean to say is that it can't be a MEANINGFUL problem if we logically exclude the possibility of a solution.
damillionmalania its a problem to those who don't believe in determinism and this is where it gets fuzzy but consider this: if we accept determinism to be true then we people aren't responsible for their actions, if people aren't responsible for their actions then putting them in prison is irrational, so then the next step is to not hold people accountable for their actions but that conclusion came from determinism and for persons who believe in free will coming to that conclusion that came from something you believe to be irrational is a huge problem. So determinists have no stake but persons who believe in free will do. Also consider this, a criminal believes in determinism then does immoral things and justifies what they do because without free will there is no morality therefore stealing cannot be wrong so the person will steal because they believe in determinism which again is a moral hazard.
Damien Dunn I understand the argument, but not the practical problem. Let me try to rephrase myself. Let's use your example: a criminal stands in court and justifies what he's done by saying that he has no free will and that the crime was beyond his control.
Now, the way I see it the judge can do three things.
1. Not accept the criminals defence, say that free will does indeed exist and punish the criminal.
2. Accept the criminals defence, say that free will does not exist and not punish the criminal.
3. Accept the criminals defence, say that free will does not accept and punish the criminal.
The point being: if there is no free will, the judge is not accountable for his actions, and that something is irrational becomes an unreasonable objection as we cannot choose to do otherwise than we are already doing anyway. If free will does not exist we can not choose to act rationally.
damillionmalania
I completely agree with that reasoning. I suppose as an individual who can't help but believe he has free will, I find the notion that society proceeds on the basis of no free will to be problematic on its face. In fact I find the notion of rationality itself meaningless because, as you suggested, behaving rationally is morally equivalent to behaving irrationally.
But what about the individual who, in spite of the fact that he does not have free will, continues to believe sincerely that he does? This still seems like a problem in practice.
hi didn't analyze the inner mechanisms of thought,
he speaks very dialectically, he focuses on phrasal interpretation on the cosmos
and not on the real cosmos, endocrine activity, cell activation.
Therefore his opotion to select non determinism was correct if we accept that there is no real world, only the dialectic use of it as understood by language and people that never read deeply endocrinology, molecular vibration, probabilistic ranges and
variant quantum interpretations.
Randomness is not probabilities of the real world. Each wavefuntion - each condition, has a different probabilistic range. Probabilistic ranges are not deleborate choises. Also when we select the glass A and not the glass B
we could pick it up by infinite possible ways. If we had only one glass
that had many colors and we were forced to pick it up from a red including,
that would comress the initial infinity.
The collapse of neuronal data into decision is probabilistic,
and yes, our brain may limit the range of probabilities,
but we have not immediate deleborate control all over our brain.
Then we have to ask what is the self.
We cannot speparate totally the self from the environment.
Can we?
We speak and we are asked to do stuff. That data influence the self.
Dialectically if you ignore parts of the full picture there is no determinism.
In quantum mechanics the deterministic optimum option interpretation is only one
interpretation.
There are many other options except determinism and free will,
like true randomness and probabilistic collapse into desicion.
People of low iq tend to interpret prababilistic collapse of a certain range
as controlled conscious action, but usually they fail to base their thoughts.
Here the lecturer is based on dialectic and non analytical experiments.
Real life has more factors involved.
If you simplify the world, you force it to bend upon your thoughts.
A real thinker usually tries to expand his brain to the real world,
except if he has low iq or if he deleborately prefers aesthetic interpretations.
Pfffft ... He cautions people against the 'slippery' use of "choice" by determinists, then goes right ahead and uses the phrase "my own desires and reasoning" in an equally (if not moreso) slippery way in an attempt to argue for his preferred compatibilism ... 😏 ... as all compatibilists (eg Dennett) are want to do ... I think compatibilists are the 'clergy'/sophists of the free will debate; arguing on the basis of emotion/consequentialism, out of one or more fears as to what it would mean for humans if they didn't at least *believe* they have "free will" (whatever that could possibly mean) ... The other thing they are want to do, in favour of their crusade, is to invoke QM as a get-out-of-'jail'(determinism)-free card, when no one understands the apparent/supposed implications of QM hypotheses and (to-date) experiments for that to be legitimate (His blindingly brief reference to "modern physics" is, presumably, how/where he plays this 'card', on this occasion ...). They may be well-meaning, but compatibilists are not (imo) being intellectually honest with us (hence, my likening them to (at least some, though almost certainly not all) clergy ... 😏).
You raise some valid criticisms, but don't go around calling people sophists. It isn't very constructive :)
Determinism asserts that the objects and forces that make up our universe behave in a reliable fashion. But determinism itself is neither an object nor a force. It's only a comment. We happen to be one of the objects that make up the universe. And we act forcibly to achieve our will.
So, in the physical universe, we are both objects and forces. The nature of the object that is us, is physical (drop us and a bowling ball off the leaning tower of Pisa and we'll both hit the ground at the same time), biological (driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce), and rational (able to calculate the best option to achieve our purpose, as in trying to build a tower we can drop things off).
"Free" refers to the absence of a meaningful constraint. Because "free will" refers to a decision we make for ourselves, when free of coercion or other undue influence. It never has and never could mean "freedom from reliable causation", because that's an oxymoron. Without reliable cause and effect we could never reliably cause any affect, and would thus have no freedom to do anything at all.
I really can't believe how stupid people can be to consider that they are merely consciouss characters in a movie.
Brian Troutstul I can't believe how stupid people are believing in their ego telling them otherwise