Does the non-existence of free will change your beliefs?

[Willamena]

Interesting. From Dr. Baer's paper "Free will requires determinism":

"Since the quantum revolution, few scientists believe that the world is totally deterministic. But if, at any moment, anything could happen—which is another way of saying that the past has no control over the present and future—then any kind of prediction or control, or even understanding, would be impossible. Psychology can proceed only to the extent that the universe is deterministic. So psychologists rather naturally attend to those aspects of human behavior that follow (or that they assume follow) discernible cause-and-effect logic."

from the edited volume Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will (Oxford University Press, 2008).

The gist of the essay is that free will requires a deterministic (in some sense) universe and that "[d]eterminism makes free will possible" because without it there is only random events.

I don't see either science or induction being affected by indeterminism. Edit: Science relies on induction, and because of its inherent uncertainty, induction trumps indeterminism. No matter how weird the universe turns out to be, science can handle it.

 

[1137]

Indeed. That is why it is not a good idea to project that subjective ideal onto objective reality. It becomes a hindrance to clearly seeing reality. You miss perceiving possibilities--you screen out that which does not conform to your idea of perfection.

I agree, how is that relevant? I mean, I realize you are saying that my belief in determinism is a subjective ideal, but despite the fact that it is supported by evidence and reason (whereas free will is no), one or the other is going to be objectively true.

It was a good try though!

 

[Willamena]

I agree, how is that relevant? I mean, I realize you are saying that my belief in determinism is a subjective ideal, but despite the fact that it is supported by evidence and reason (whereas free will is no), one or the other is going to be objectively true.

It was a good try though!

Does determinism have inherent uncertainty? If not, induction trumps it too.

 

[1137]

Does determinism have inherent uncertainty? If not, induction trumps it too.

Inherent uncertainty? So your argument is that since we are bound to this dimension, bound to existing at the atomic level, and therefore have things such as the uncertainty principal, determinism is false? Ok...

 

[Willamena]

Inherent uncertainty?

yes...

 

[1137]

Ah, I love the "we don't fully know, therefore mysticism" argument. Though I rarely see it used outside of the argument of whether consciousness is a product of the brain or not. Sadly it is a waste of time to debate. And I am sorry, how does not being able to know both momentum and position of a particle show that we have free will? Hahaha, again, nice try.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't see either science or induction being affected by indeterminism. Edit: Science relies on induction, and because of its inherent uncertainty, induction trumps indeterminism. No matter how weird the universe turns out to be, science can handle it.

The scientific approach, method, and the resulting models all are completely and utterly dependent on the notion that in the right environment, the same processes will yield the same results over and over again. Gravity, for example, will not suddenly cease to exist. Atoms will not suddenly fly in all directions randomly. Determinism, at a very fundamental level, means order. Small changes, such as the surface tension of water, could make life as we know it impossible. But the properties of water are constant, following a determined pattern. Determinism becomes important for human minds in a similar way. If human thought and behavior were completely unpredictable, then we would not have free will. Only chaos.

 

[1137]

Wait, I just have to know, how does uncertainty = infinite regress. I mean, I really want to hear the reasoning behind the idea that uncertainty shows that not everything is cause / effect.

 

[Willamena]

Ah, I love the "we don't fully know, therefore mysticism" argument. Though I rarely see it used outside of the argument of whether consciousness is a product of the brain or not. Sadly it is a waste of time to debate.

I don't know it--sorry.

And I am sorry, how does not being able to know both momentum and position of a particle show that we have free will? Hahaha, again, nice try.

I wasn't talking about the Uncertainty Principle. I was talking about uncertainty.

 

[Willamena]

Wait, I just have to know, how does uncertainty = infinite regress. I mean, I really want to hear the reasoning behind the idea that uncertainty shows that not everything is cause / effect.

I don't know--how does it?

Your strawman Jedi Tricks have no effect on me. *waves*

 

[1137]

I don't know--how does it?

Your strawman Jedi Tricks have no effect on me. *waves*

Well I said "inherent uncertainty?" and you refused to explain what you meant, leaving me to decide the meaning. That is hardly a straw man when I ask for clarification and you refuse.

 

[Willamena]

The scientific approach, method, and the resulting models all are completely and utterly dependent on the notion that in the right environment, the same processes will yield the same results over and over again. Gravity, for example, will not suddenly cease to exist. Atoms will not suddenly fly in all directions randomly.

Right--all of which are dependent on the fact that these things have never failed in the past. The future (prediction) dependent on the past (induction). Science is an epistemelogical model, none of which is about ontological truth.

Determinism, at a very fundamental level, means order. Small changes, such as the surface tension of water, could make life as we know it impossible. But the properties of water are constant, following a determined pattern. Determinism becomes important for human minds in a similar way. If human thought and behavior were completely unpredictable, then we would not have free will. Only chaos.

Now we cast ontological truth. Science, too, essentially means order. Regardless that there's a possibility that might make our current reality an impossibility--here it is; what 'might be' isn't--ontological truth. Induction happens, and prediction is reliable until it isn't. And when it isn't, we adapt--we revise our epistemological model...

 

[Willamena]

Well I said "inherent uncertainty?" and you refused to explain what you meant, leaving me to decide the meaning. That is hardly a straw man when I ask for clarification and you refuse.

I just meant what I said. If I meant Uncertainty Principle, I'd have said that.

David Hume introduced the uncertainty of induction:
"What is necessity (or lack of freedom) other than our experience of the fact that things always happen with some form of regularity? We assume that things cause other things insofar as we see that some things happen with regularity before and near other things. In short, a 'cause' is nothing other than a kind of event we regularly experience preceding another kind of event."

 

[Straw Dog]

Must I believe in 'free will' in order to make conscious, deliberate choices? Can I change my beliefs when what I believe in is 'change' itself? I know nothing of abstract notions regarding free will and determinism. All I know is the concrete freedom within my immediate frame of reference and the volition to act.

 

[Storm]

Must I believe in 'free will' in order to make conscious, deliberate choices? Can I change my beliefs when what I believe in is 'change' itself? I know nothing of abstract notions regarding free will and determinism. All I know is the concrete freedom within my immediate frame of reference and the volition to act.

Well, in a nutshell, determinism says those things are illusion.

 

[Willamena]

Must I believe in 'free will' in order to make conscious, deliberate choices? Can I change my beliefs when what I believe in is 'change' itself? I know nothing of abstract notions regarding free will and determinism. All I know is the concrete freedom within my immediate frame of reference and the volition to act.

That's beautiful, man.

 

[1137]

Right, David Hume... I don't buy into him much.

 

[Willamena]

Right, David Hume... I don't buy into him much.

That's evident.

 

[Straw Dog]

Well, in a nutshell, determinism says those things are illusion.

What illusion? I know that my choices have causes. A determined will is still a will free to act within the potentials of the present.

 

[Storm]

What illusion? I know that my choices have causes. A determined will is still a will free to act within the potentials of the present.

Well then, that qualifies as belief in free will.