Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[shunyadragon]

I do not see how free will is possible since all decisions are impacted by genetics, history, education, and circumstance.

It is not difficult to refer to a common set of a chain of cause and effect situations that both free will is involved deterministic influences are involved.

The choice of ones belief system is a common situation. Culture, genetics, history, education, and circumstances do limit the free will choice of which church or religion on chooses, but nonetheless people often weigh the evidence and deterministic influences and make a choice within a selection of beliefs that fit their desire for a 'sense of community' and comfort zone, which represent deterministic influences in and of themselves. The fact is people do make different choices given the limits of deterministic influences,

 

[Milton Platt]

You can type any type of post you wish here, but are still subject to moderation as defined by forum rules.

Did what I post violate a rule? Not my intention. Why was it out of line?

 

[Skwim]

You can type any type of post you wish here, but are still subject to moderation as defined by forum rules.

.

?​

.

 

[Repox]

I do not see how free will is possible since all decisions are impacted by genetics, history, education, and circumstance.

I maintain people have freewill to contemplate and subsequently to act on information. Because of the complexity of the issue, I don't believe there is a way to prove determinism. The key to my argument is "objective self awareness." It is the situation whereby humans think about themselves as objects, they just don't react. They contemplate, sometimes thinking long and hard about decisions before acting. There is no way one can quantify this process.

 

[blü 2]

I maintain people have freewill to contemplate and subsequently to act on information. Because of the complexity of the issue, I don't believe there is a way to prove determinism. The key to my argument is "objective self awareness." It is the situation whereby humans think about themselves as objects, they just don't react. They contemplate, sometimes thinking long and hard about decisions before acting. There is no way one can quantify this process.

Why shouldn't animals evolve the power to evaluate circumstances and make choices accordingly? Computers (and you don't suggest they have freewill, do you?) do this all day and every day, and are making autonomous cars possible.

The human brain (so far) is vastly more complex than a computer. And of course other animals, birds and reptiles make choices all the time. Some of their resulting behaviors, and some of ours, arise from instinct (pre-programming, as it were) but others are within a looser framework, and require more careful evaluation.

And the whole 'freewill' side still has the onus of explaining HOW a brain might make a choice independently of its neurons, independently of cause&effect. The ONLY alternative I can imagine is randomness. And if there are supernatural beings, they too have this problem.

So how's 'freewill' done?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Did what I post violate a rule? Not my intention. Why was it out of line?

No. Your fine.

I was just using an example with a bit of real time reaction thrown in.

Freewill being you can post anything you like and desire, determinism being those rules and moderation that sets parameter's within the forum that creates them , and gives pause if an indication that rules were violated somehow.

Of course forum rules, while deterministic, can also be modified themselves anytime by those people that creates and sets them to reflect their own desires as to how things are conducted, exemplifying how things remain dynamic as conditions warrant such changes and modifications.

 

[Indagator]

Definition of Free Will: Ability to determine yourself, choose what determines you, be your on cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, you determinists getting absurd here.

If you are aware of your determinism you are not deterministic. Because if you know that A causes B, you can just stop doing A, there you go, the chain is broken, or if you know that and continue to do A so it causes B, you are now doing it out of your own free will.

The only way one can disagree with this is by saying that we are not conscious, and if one does that i say that this person got some mental problems, perhaps something to do with chromosomes.

 

[Curious George]

Why shouldn't animals evolve the power to evaluate circumstances and make choices accordingly? Computers (and you don't suggest they have freewill, do you?) do this all day and every day, and are making autonomous cars possible.

The human brain (so far) is vastly more complex than a computer. And of course other animals, birds and reptiles make choices all the time. Some of their resulting behaviors, and some of ours, arise from instinct (pre-programming, as it were) but others are within a looser framework, and require more careful evaluation.

And the whole 'freewill' side still has the onus of explaining HOW a brain might make a choice independently of its neurons, independently of cause&effect. The ONLY alternative I can imagine is randomness. And if there are supernatural beings, they too have this problem.

So how's 'freewill' done?

First there are theories that the universe itself is conscious, so suggesting computers have some degree of will is not too out there. But generally most people would not say that computers have will. And I agree that the process of analysis and the subseqient decision does not entail freewill.

Why would a person need to make a decision independently of neurons? What logic requires that. Choice could just as easily occur with neurons.

No there is no onus on anyone to show independence from cause and effect until it is established that the universe is subject to cause and effect. There are a great many problems with that. The biggest is that the current theories disfavor a completely deterministic universe. This of course does not mean that the universe is not deterministic. Just that there is plenty of reason to doubt it and no onus to show independence from it.

 

[Curious George]

Definition of Free Will: Ability to determine yourself, choose what determines you, be your on cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, you determinists getting absurd here.

If you are aware of your determinism you are not deterministic. Because if you know that A causes B, you can just stop doing A, there you go, the chain is broken, or if you know that and continue to do A so it causes B, you are now doing it out of your own free will.

The only way one can disagree with this is by saying that we are not conscious, and if one does that i say that this person got some mental problems, perhaps something to do with chromosomes.

The argument is that the determination happens on a much smaller level than thinking A causes B so I will stop A. The idea is that based on stimuli neural networks fire. These cause you to want or not want to do things. This also causes your brain to send messages to act or not act. Effectively, this cuts off will. The resulting feeling of free will is an illusion which is the result of evolution. Many factors are involved but the general idea your ego tricks you into thinking you are in control. Consciousness is still possible. However the control the consciousness percieved is supposed to be illusory.

 

[blü 2]

First there are theories that the universe itself is conscious

Really? How does that work? I mean, some of those galaxies might look a bit like neuron linkages if you squint, but ...

so suggesting computers have some degree of will is not too out there.

Hm. Basically I associate will with self-awareness, and I don't think of computers as having that; but on the other hand I don't have in mind any stringent definition with which I could test that proposition.

Why would a person need to make a decision independently of neurons? What logic requires that. Choice could just as easily occur with neurons.

I address that question to the free-willers who reject determinism. Since neurons work together to form complex chains of deterministic cause&effect (possibly punctured here and there by quantum randomness), that means such people envisage some other way of making meaningful decisions; and since I can't imagine what that might be, I'd like to know how they argue it.

there is no onus on anyone to show independence from cause and effect until it is established that the universe is subject to cause and effect.

As distinct from what? Randomness is the only option that occurs to me. Do you have something else in mind?

 

[Curious George]

Really? How does that work? I mean, some of those galaxies might look a bit like neuron linkages if you squint, but ...

Why the requirement for neural networks for consciousness. Do you have some logic that necessitates this?

Hm. Basically I associate will with self-awareness, and I don't think of computers as having that; but on the other hand I don't have in mind any stringent definition with which I could test that proposition.
I address that question to the free-willers who reject determinism. Since neurons work together to form complex chains of deterministic cause&effect (possibly punctured here and there by quantum randomness), that means such people envisage some other way of making meaningful decisions; and since I can't imagine what that might be, I'd like to know how they argue it.
As distinct from what? Randomness is the only option that occurs to me. Do you have something else in mind?

Well I guess that depends on your definition of random. If you require that random not have conscious thought, then we could say that any non deterministic outcome with conscious thought is niether random nor related to cause and effect. If you cover up choice and requore that to be one of the variables needed to predict effect then you have conveniently hidden free will within cause and effect. So, determinism to the exclusion of freewill would require you to allow for a third option. Causal by objective forces, causal by consciousness, and randomness. There is your third choice...hiding within your cause and effect...

 

[blü 2]

Why the requirement for neural networks for consciousness. Do you have some logic that necessitates this?

Only that the only examples of consciousness we presently know of occur in functioning brains under certain conditions. Once we have a deep understanding of what it is, I see no reason why machines should not be made conscious. (Unless we added programs to mimic the functions of hormones, they'd be emotionless, of course. And they'd have such moral views as we build in, though if we were really curious there are ways we could let them determine their own priorities in situations we'd say called for moral decisions.)

In asking this question, what other forms of consciousness did you have in mind, and by what non-neuron or neuron-like means would you say it could be conscious?

I guess that depends on your definition of random.

Things are in random order when there is in fact no pattern or arrangement bringing that order about. (Things may look random when the observer can't detect a pattern but if (as with a random number generator) they're produced by an algorithm, that's not what I mean.) For instance, we presently think that the time any emission of a particle occurs in the course of radioactive decay is random but within statistical parameters.

we could say that any non deterministic outcome with conscious thought is niether random nor related to cause and effect.

Do you mean ─
that some entity has conscious thought
that its consciousness exists in a manner which does not employ chains of cause&effect (like what, for example?)
and does not employ randomness either
?
We know of no such thing. Nor can I think of the manner it obtains consciousness. Can you?

If you cover up choice and requore that to be one of the variables needed to predict effect

What's your definition of 'cause' and what's your definition of 'effect' here? ('Cause' for me is the movement of energy from a region of higher energy to a region of lower energy, and 'effect' is the change that results.)

then you have conveniently hidden free will within cause and effect.

I can't answer that till I have your definitions.

So, determinism to the exclusion of freewill would require you to allow for a third option. Causal by objective forces, causal by consciousness, and randomness.

I don't see where that would require comes from. But I'll wait for your definitions and further clarifications before I go on.

 

[shunyadragon]

First there are theories that the universe itself is conscious, . .

There are no falsifiable theories nor hypothesis in science that our universe (physical existence) is conscious,

. . . so suggesting computers have some degree of will is not too out there. But generally most people would not say that computers have will. And I agree that the process of analysis and the subsequent decision does not entail freewill.

The present technology of computers most likely cannot achieve a significant degree of consciousness, There is research into more advance technology of computers based on the neuronetworks of the mind, and fractal modelling that show promise of possibly achieving this goal.

No there is no onus on anyone to show independence from cause and effect until it is established that the universe is subject to cause and effect. There are a great many problems with that. The biggest is that the current theories disfavor a completely deterministic universe.

The macro universe has been determined by all reasonable doubt to be deterministic. The micro Quantum world where observed properties such as the uncertainty principle are often falsely cited as evidence that our physical existence is not deterministic. Even observed properties such as the uncertainty principle are consistent and predictable characteristics of the Quantum World. Some appeal to unknowns and an 'argument from ignorance' to justify a high fog index and false indeterminate nature of our physical existence,but this is a 'red herring' and a false canard,

Pretty much all the scientific research and development of theories and hypothesis have demonstrated that our universe has predicable natural laws that are fundamentally deterministic even in the predictable nature of the Quantum World.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why the requirement for neural networks for consciousness. Do you have some logic that necessitates this?

There is no objective verifiable evidence that objectively determines that consciousness exists outside neural networks. If you can cite scientific research that falsifies the existence of consciousness outside neural networks please do.

Well I guess that depends on your definition of random.

random - "chosen or happening without any particular method, pattern, or purpose."

Actually the accepted definition of random is a concept not observed in the macro universe. The observed variable outcomes of chains of cause and effect is best described as fractal relationships described in chaos theory. There are some aspects of the Quantum World that appear random, but this remains observed behavior from a limited knowledge at present of the nature of the Quantum World, and has a predictable property,

If you require that random not have conscious thought, then we could say that any non deterministic outcome with conscious thought is neither random nor related to cause and effect. If you cover up choice and requore that to be one of the variables needed to predict effect then you have conveniently hidden free will within cause and effect. So, determinism to the exclusion of freewill would require you to allow for a third option. Causal by objective forces, causal by consciousness, and randomness. There is your third choice...hiding within your cause and effect...

 

[Repox]

Why shouldn't animals evolve the power to evaluate circumstances and make choices accordingly? Computers (and you don't suggest they have freewill, do you?) do this all day and every day, and are making autonomous cars possible.

The human brain (so far) is vastly more complex than a computer. And of course other animals, birds and reptiles make choices all the time. Some of their resulting behaviors, and some of ours, arise from instinct (pre-programming, as it were) but others are within a looser framework, and require more careful evaluation.

And the whole 'freewill' side still has the onus of explaining HOW a brain might make a choice independently of its neurons, independently of cause&effect. The ONLY alternative I can imagine is randomness. And if there are supernatural beings, they too have this problem.

So how's 'freewill' done?

I don't think there is a good answer to "HOW a brain might make a choice independently of its neurons, independently of cause&effect." I think it is all linked, and I don't think there is a way of answering the question. It goes back to the theological issue of obedience to God, which is even more unfathomable. If a creature willfully opposes God, it would separate that creature from God. If there is no God, however, it is an academic exercise.

I prefer to think we have freewill and disobedience to God means we are separated from God. One could ask why did Satan rebel against God? God is perfect so why would He (it) create an imperfect creature? I believe the answer is He gave his creatures freewill. Therefore, they would suffer the consequences of their actions. Moreover, they would not be forced to love and worship God. Willful obedience is more desirable than robot worship.

As for other species and their predicament. It has happened because of the fall of paradise, they are collateral damage from the event. I know, one can raise social justice issues. Well, I don't really know. I just try to understand.

I understand the issues of converting neurons for brain activity into a model to explain activity is highly complicated; therefore, disallowing degrees of certainty, it is much easier to assume freewill in a spirit world where, of course, we have non computable issues. However, in a spirit world we also have no physical parameters to assess processes related to decision making. Even so, I believe the brain has characteristics enabling one to assume freewill attributes. I just don't know how to derive a model. It is a very perplexing problem.

 

[Skwim]

Definition of Free Will: Ability to determine yourself, choose what determines you, be your on cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, you determinists getting absurd here.

Of course it is, but who said it? I ask because I've never seen anything like it before. Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

.

 

[Repox]

Apparently, the more advanced social science becomes, the more it digs in to become like a hard science. It has been called soft science because methodologies have fallen short of rigorous procedures found in the physical sciences. Therefore, it appears to be weak kneed to propose a methodology short of being labelled "hard science." If there is no methodology for proving freewill, then it must be a false or an inadequate paradigm, right? Well, I suppose there is no alternative but to propose God created creatures with freewill. Oh, Oh, how about all those other species, the one's without membership in the "civilized world?" And, wouldn't we be just like them if we didn't have symbolic communication abilities?

God's intervention in human history seems to be evidence for humans special place on earth (Bible), and God did attempt to establish a holy order with His chosen people, at least that is what Revelation states. It is not over yet, maybe it will come true. It depends on Human obedience to God's Commandments. If there is no freewill, there is no argument. Because God did intervene in human history, and because he demanded obedience to His commandments, we have reasons for humans having freewill.

 

[Curious George]

There are no falsifiable theories nor hypothesis in science that our universe (physical existence) is conscious,



The present technology of computers most likely cannot achieve a significant degree of consciousness, There is research into more advance technology of computers based on the neuronetworks of the mind, and fractal modelling that show promise of possibly achieving this goal.



The macro universe has been determined by all reasonable doubt to be deterministic. The micro Quantum world where observed properties such as the uncertainty principle are often falsely cited as evidence that our physical existence is not deterministic. Even observed properties such as the uncertainty principle are consistent and predictable characteristics of the Quantum World. Some appeal to unknowns and an 'argument from ignorance' to justify a high fog index and false indeterminate nature of our physical existence,but this is a 'red herring' and a false canard,

Pretty much all the scientific research and development of theories and hypothesis have demonstrated that our universe has predicable natural laws that are fundamentally deterministic even in the predictable nature of the Quantum World.

There is no line between the quantum world and the macro world. Current theories suggest nature is not strictly deterministic.

 

[Curious George]

There is no objective verifiable evidence that objectively determines that consciousness exists outside neural networks. If you can cite scientific research that falsifies the existence of consciousness outside neural networks please do.



random - "chosen or happening without any particular method, pattern, or purpose."

Actually the accepted definition of random is a concept not observed in the macro universe. The observed variable outcomes of chains of cause and effect is best described as fractal relationships described in chaos theory. There are some aspects of the Quantum World that appear random, but this remains observed behavior from a limited knowledge at present of the nature of the Quantum World, and has a predictable property,

Using your definition of random, choice with method is excluded. If you suggest that cause and effect do not include choice then there is the third option.

**edit changed choice with cause to choice with method.

 

[Curious George]

There are no falsifiable theories nor hypothesis in science that our universe (physical existence) is conscious,



The present technology of computers most likely cannot achieve a significant degree of consciousness, There is research into more advance technology of computers based on the neuronetworks of the mind, and fractal modelling that show promise of possibly achieving this goal.



The macro universe has been determined by all reasonable doubt to be deterministic. The micro Quantum world where observed properties such as the uncertainty principle are often falsely cited as evidence that our physical existence is not deterministic. Even observed properties such as the uncertainty principle are consistent and predictable characteristics of the Quantum World. Some appeal to unknowns and an 'argument from ignorance' to justify a high fog index and false indeterminate nature of our physical existence,but this is a 'red herring' and a false canard,

Pretty much all the scientific research and development of theories and hypothesis have demonstrated that our universe has predicable natural laws that are fundamentally deterministic even in the predictable nature of the Quantum World.

"Fundamentally determistic" but not fully deterministic? What is the meaning behind that first adjective?

The "macro universe" has not been determined beyond all reasonable doubt to be deterministic.