Determinism/Free Will

[MikeF]

IMO

There is human objectivity and subjectivity. The laws of physics are objective. If we add subjectivity to an otherwise objective observation, one will not get deterministic results based on objective rules.

If you go to the library, there is fiction and nonfiction. Nonfiction does not have to obey the laws of science; science fiction. It can make irrational connections that have no basis in reality, thereby breaking the hold of rational and objective determinism.

The human brain operates based on objective laws of bio-physical chemistry. But the frontal lobe can move its data in ways; imagination, that we would be considered fiction and subjective. I can image flying to sun with wings of wax. This is not possible in reality. This is where free will appears. It can use imagination to break free from the natural deterministic logic paths.

A truly intelligent computer will need to find a way to break away from the logic of its programming. This is easier to do if it had the capacity for subjectivity, so it no longer has to follow just deterministic logic. Creativity that is ahead of its time, takes free will, since the logic of the day does not naturally lead there. This require a step outside the box that is not yet part of the program.

I think I have said something similar in this thread, and I am with you up to this point.

Ironically, faith allows for free will since one believes in things not seen, but only imagined. One cannot determine how this will end based on logic. If you do not have faith, but have to see to believe, you are more predictable and deterministic and may lack free will as many have reasoned.

Here you lose me. I would have an opposite takeaway from this scenario. If one has faith in a belief or an idea, to me that means it is held irrespective of evidence that conflicts or refutes. In other words, where there is evidence to support, no faith is required. As a result, a strong adherence to faith will stagnate and be resistant or unable to adapt and incorporate new information. This does not speak to freedom of will, in my opinion.

If, on the other hand, one eschews dogmatic faith and instead is ever open to new information and experiences, knowledge and understanding will continually grow. We do not require belief to be creative, we simply need to have the courage to make guesses and take chances. Creativity requires freedom to entertain and consider thoughts and ideas outside of dogmatic belief. And as you mention in the first part of your response, with creativity and experimentation, we can not only understand what is, we can also discover what can be.

 

[dybmh]

@Heyo and @blü 2 ,

It seems to me that God uses its omnipotence to suspend its omniscience so that freewill can exist. Is that reasonable?

 

[blü 2]

@Heyo and @blü 2 ,

It seems to me that God uses its omnipotence to suspend its omniscience so that freewill can exist. Is that reasonable?

@Heyo will have his own views, of course.

For my part, this reminds me of the rather similar limit that came up from time to time on the old Beliefnet site ─ that God, though omnipotent and omniscient and perfect, has chosen not to know the future. I used to think of this as the no-peeking rule; now I'd call it the self-blinding rule.

Either way, this version of God has chosen not to be omniscient, not to be omnipresent and not to be perfect.

A necessary consequence, I'd say, but one very usually denied by the promoters of the idea.

A second consideration is this ─ in the absence of external coercion we humans naturally feel that our decisions are our own. We don't notice that we make them with our brain's evolved decision-making mechanisms, which are studied as part of on-going brain research. You may remember those experiments back a decade or so showing that our nonconscious brain makes, and starts to act on, our decisions before it lets the conscious brain in on the deal, the interval varying from under a second to (from memory) up to seven seconds.

So by what process does omniscient omnipotent perfect God make decisions independently of the decision-making mechanisms of [his] own equivalent of a brain? If God chose to blind [him]self to the future so that humans could have free will, would [he] have actually achieved anything, whether for humans or for [him]self?

 

[Koldo]

@vulcanlogician
If no two runs in both types of experiments will result in identical patterns of choice, does this indicate that there is at least some freedom to choose? I would say yes. I would say that we human beings do not have complete freedom of choice whereby any presented choice is in no way influenced by past events and experiences. I would posit that we have a limited or restricted capacity to exercise our will. Our unique neural patterns of our central nervous system creates limits, or more precisely, influences upon how we will decide any given choice. Past experience certainly influences how we decide any given choice. Of course, the choices we are even presented are dictated by all causal events leading up to the present choice. But despite all those factors narrowing and limiting how we might choose in any given circumstance, I feel that there can still be some serendipity, some expression of whim, in the exercising of some choices, and I based that idea on the speculations presented in the thought experiment. We, I surmise, are not going to do the very exact same thing, every single time, dictated strictly upon all previous causal chains.

I have one other idea as well. I think our capacity to imagine breaks causal chains. The fact that we can know that past causes lead to current events allows us to realize that changing conditions will impact future events. Our imagination however can create events within the rules of nature that are possible, yet have never happened. We can also mix and match our past experiences in a way to imagine things that are not probable or even possible. If we are making choices about our future actions, and those choices are informed by imagination instead of the present state of affairs, are we not making free choices in that instance? Certainly our past experience has influence, yet I see us as inventing choices to a degree as opposed to simply reacting to current conditions. This seems another possible expression of free will.

What do you think? Have I made a case for some modicum of free will? At the very least, I think I have a good argument to claim that the future is not set in stone. Would you agree?

I don't quite get how you got from 'there's some randomness that allows a distinct outcome' to 'there's free will'.

 

[MikeF]

I don't quite get how you got from 'there's some randomness that allows a distinct outcome' to 'there's free will'.

Let me preface by saying this thread is an evolving discussion for me on the topic. Determinism and "Free Will" (however you want to understand it) is something that I had not given any real thought to. This thread is off-the-cuff speculation on my part.

One of my take-aways from this thread is that "Free Will" is a loaded theological and philosophical term, and as I am not religious and see science as superseding philosophy in tackling questions about the cosmos and ourselves, I am essentially discarding that label, and instead am interested in exploring how we might characterize human volition, and in understanding what factors influence and constrain volition and to what degree.

I see human volition influenced and constrained by a number of factors, including: physical structure of CNS, socialization and indoctrination, and more broadly, experience and acquired knowledge. Although these impact volition/behavior, sometimes quite strongly, I do not see us as wholly or strictly deterministic. We have the capacity to moderate or act counter to these influences.

On top of all this, we also have the capacity to be creative and inventive, to imagine things that do not currently exist and make them a reality. We also have the capacity to imagine future states and condition and willfully choose, and work, to cause those future states to occur. To me, this speaks to more than strict determinism.

 

[Heyo]

@Heyo and @blü 2 ,

It seems to me that God uses its omnipotence to suspend its omniscience so that freewill can exist. Is that reasonable?

No.
As I have tried to explain to @Brian2, it has nothing to do with god but with the universe. In a universe that is deterministic, free will can't exist. The existence (or potential existence) of an omniscient being indicates a deterministic universe.

 

[dybmh]

@Heyo will have his own views, of course.

For my part, this reminds me of the rather similar limit that came up from time to time on the old Beliefnet site ─ that God, though omnipotent and omniscient and perfect, has chosen not to know the future. I used to think of this as the no-peeking rule; now I'd call it the self-blinding rule.

Yes, this is my belief with one small amendment. I think that God establishes the beginning and the end of each creation. It's the path along the way which is left to be determined by circumstances and freewill choices.

this version of God has chosen not to be omniscient, not to be omnipresent and not to be perfect.

This confuses me.

I don't see how God's omnipresence and perfection are limited in this scenario. RE: Omnipresence: God simply chooses to experience our timeline along with us, becoming aware of our choices and actions in realtime. RE: Perfection; that's subjective, isn't it? If God values human moral, intellectual, and emotional progress, then the perfect system would include the means to demonstrate this maturity. To accomplish this, as I said, God initiates the beginning, determines the ending (making sure that the creation succeeds) allows the path along the way to be left up to us.

A second consideration is this ─ in the absence of external coercion we humans naturally feel that our decisions are our own. We don't notice that we make them with our brain's evolved decision-making mechanisms, which are studied as part of on-going brain research.

Interesting

You may remember those experiments back a decade or so showing that our nonconscious brain makes, and starts to act on, our decisions before it lets the conscious brain in on the deal, the interval varying from under a second to (from memory) up to seven seconds.

So by what process does omniscient omnipotent perfect God make decisions independently of the decision-making mechanisms of [his] own equivalent of a brain?

I'm not familiar with those experiments, but I remember hearing a little about them. I'm not sure if this is relevent considering the God is allowing freewill. But I'm sure people handle trival matters on auto-pilot.

If God chose to blind [him]self to the future so that humans could have free will, would [he] have actually achieved anything, whether for humans or for [him]self?

Yes, the achievement is a fair system. Humans can be judged according to their deeds. They are rewarded or punished accordingly. Without freewill, A persons actions are no longer their own. Their accomplishments and pitfalls are no longer connected to the person. We become robots; what we do is attributed to the programmer.

 

[Koldo]

Let me preface by saying this thread is an evolving discussion for me on the topic. Determinism and "Free Will" (however you want to understand it) is something that I had not given any real thought to. This thread is off-the-cuff speculation on my part.

One of my take-aways from this thread is that "Free Will" is a loaded theological and philosophical term, and as I am not religious and see science as superseding philosophy in tackling questions about the cosmos and ourselves, I am essentially discarding that label, and instead am interested in exploring how we might characterize human volition, and in understanding what factors influence and constrain volition and to what degree.

I see human volition influenced and constrained by a number of factors, including: physical structure of CNS, socialization and indoctrination, and more broadly, experience and acquired knowledge. Although these impact volition/behavior, sometimes quite strongly, I do not see us as wholly or strictly deterministic. We have the capacity to moderate or act counter to these influences.

On top of all this, we also have the capacity to be creative and inventive, to imagine things that do not currently exist and make them a reality. We also have the capacity to imagine future states and condition and willfully choose, and work, to cause those future states to occur. To me, this speaks to more than strict determinism.

My argument against free will goes like this: Imagine you want to eat pancakes. But you are on a strict diet. You want to lose some weight. So you resist the urge to eat pancakes. But what you are actually doing without realizing is having your behavior determined by your will to stick to a strict diet, your strongest will. So whenever you look at your past actions you are going to notice that you have always done what you wanted to do the most. Ask yourself, when has that not happened?

 

[dybmh]

My argument against free will goes like this: Imagine you want to eat pancakes. But you are on a strict diet. You want to lose some weight. So you resist the urge to eat pancakes. But what you are actually doing without realizing is having your behavior determined by your will to stick to a strict diet, your strongest will. So whenever you look at your past actions you are going to notice that you have always done what you wanted to do the most. Ask yourself, when has that not happened?

umm... "You do what you want most" sounds like freewill.

 

[blü 2]

I don't see how God's omnipresence and perfection are limited in this scenario. RE: Omnipresence: God simply chooses to experience our timeline along with us, becoming aware of our choices and actions in realtime.

Omnipresent means omnipresent throughout spacetime, surely?

RE: Perfection; that's subjective, isn't it?

It's not my claim ─ it's included free in the omni kit.

Interesting. I'm not familiar with those experiments, but I remember hearing a little about them. I'm not sure if this is relevent considering the God is allowing freewill. But I'm sure people handle trival matters on auto-pilot.

I mention them in the context of our ongoing brain research, mapping, describing and endeavoring to explain the 'how' as well as the 'what' of what our brains do.

We've evolved with decision-making mechanisms of various kinds ─ I can elaborate a little on that if you wish ─ but the overriding point is that this is how each brain arrives at its decisions, and we don't own our brains, rather the other way round. When we come to consider how free will can be in the broadest terms, this will always be a limiting factor. We feel strongly that we own our decisions, our systems of law and justice, trade and dealing, social intercourse and politics, are based on that idea, but it has its limits ─ neither you nor I can make a decision independently of our inherited decision-making equipment.

Which makes me wonder how God's decision-making processes can be free either. All decisions require a process, don't they?

 

[Koldo]

umm... "You do what you want most" sounds like freewill.

Hmm... Not really. Free will is the ability to have done otherwise, and not merely doing what you wanted to do the most. Think of it like this: Could I have done otherwise when I chose to type this post? It was indeed the thing I wanted to do the most, but to those that defend the existence of free will the answer would have to be 'yes'. But if I am always doing what I want to do the most (given my particular circumstances at that time, of course), could I truly have chosen otherwise given my will at that moment in time? Considering that it is my will that propels me towards my choices, how could I have chosen otherwise?

It is absolutely essential to make myself clear on what the determinist position entails. We (as in everyone) are so used to thinking of free will as the standard that it is not quite intuitive to think of what the absence of free will entails exactly.

 

[dybmh]

Hmm... Not really. Free will is the ability to have done otherwise, and not merely doing what you wanted to do the most. Think of it like this: Could I have done otherwise when I chose to type this post? It was indeed the thing I wanted to do the most, but to those that defend the existence of free will the answer would have to be 'yes'. But if I am always doing what I want to do the most (given my particular circumstances at that time, of course), could I truly have chosen otherwise given my will at that moment in time? Considering that it is my will that propels me towards my choices, how could I have chosen otherwise?

It is absolutely essential to make myself clear on what the determinist position entails. We (as in everyone) are so used to thinking of free will as the standard that it is not quite intuitive to think of what the absence of free will entails exactly.

thank you for the reply. i still don't get it. maybe it's just me

 

[dybmh]

Omnipresent means omnipresent throughout spacetime, surely?

Not into the future. God suspends that with Godly omnipotence.

It's not my claim ─ it's included free in the omni kit.

Sorry. Does this mean we agree? Or are you saying god's perfection is irrelevant?

We've evolved with decision-making mechanisms of various kinds ─ I can elaborate a little on that if you wish ─ but the overriding point is that this is how each brain arrives at its decisions, and we don't own our brains, rather the other way round. When we come to consider how free will can be in the broadest terms, this will always be a limiting factor. We feel strongly that we own our decisions, our systems of law and justice, trade and dealing, social intercourse and politics, are based on that idea, but it has its limits ─ neither you nor I can make a decision independently of our inherited decision-making equipment.

I hear you; it's just that imv the inherited decision making equipment is an aspect of me. When it decides, I am deciding. We are one.

 

[blü 2]

Not into the future. God suspends that with Godly omnipotence.

You'll recall that Augustine of Hippo said to God, 'anni tui omnes simul stant' ─ 'all your years are there at the same time'. And even if he hadn't, the question would be, when is NOW for God? Why would an omnipotent god limit [his] view of [his] creation to a human perception of NOW? When [he] made the universe, [he] made (as you say) the start and the end, but also the middle ─ including the teensy weensy bit in the middle when the human race was around. In fact [he] omnisciently knew it all before [he] made the universe.

Given [his] omni powers, how could it be otherwise?

Sorry. Does this mean we agree? Or are you saying god's perfection is irrelevant?

I was simply observing that the idea that God is perfect doesn't originate with me, but is usually included in lists of God's qualities. What it means in practice is another question, as you say, but in this context, it would necessarily mean that God has perfect omniscience, that there's NOTHING [he] doesn't know. (I don't see how God can be certain there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know, but ...)

I hear you; it's just that imv the inherited decision making equipment is an aspect of me. When it decides, I am deciding. We are one.

Sort of. It's just that we only know consciously what our nonconscious brain lets us know consciously ─ as those experiments showed.

 

[Koldo]

thank you for the reply. i still don't get it. maybe it's just me

Let me try a different way. This very post of yours: Could you have chosen not to type it? If yes, why would you not type it?

 

[dybmh]

You'll recall that Augustine of Hippo said to God, 'anni tui omnes simul stant' ─ 'all your years are there at the same time'. And even if he hadn't, the question would be, when is NOW for God? Why would an omnipotent god limit [his] view of [his] creation to a human perception of NOW? When [he] made the universe, [he] made (as you say) the start and the end, but also the middle ─ including the teensy weensy bit in the middle when the human race was around. In fact [he] omnisciently knew it all before [he] made the universe.

It's equally possible that God does not create the middle and instead leaves that to us.

 

[dybmh]

Let me try a different way. This very post of yours: Could you have chosen not to type it? If yes, why would you not type it?

Hypothetically, I'm lazy.

 

[blü 2]

It's equally possible that God does not create the middle and instead leaves that to us.

That removes omnipotence and omniscience and perfection from the list of [his] qualities, of course, but if that's okay, then why not?

 

[Koldo]

Hypothetically, I'm lazy.

Ok! But you were not feeling lazy (or at least not lazy enough to prevent you from posting) back when you typed that post. That condition was not present. And since it wasn't present, you have typed that post. So thinking back about that specific moment in time, could you truly have chosen otherwise? Or does it only seem that you could have chosen otherwise because you can think of yourself feeling lazy and not typing that post?

 

[dybmh]

That removes omnipotence and omniscience and perfection from the list of [his] qualities, of course, but if that's okay, then why not?

God is using omnipotence to limit omniscience.