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

[Falvlun]

Why is it irrelevant? Having free will doesn't rob you of a nature. I get that you feel having a nature equates to deterministic nature, but having free will also doesn't necessarily belie determinism. Various compatibilisms do work.

Bolded and blued. Well said, and so concise too! This often seems to be quite the misunderstanding. Free-will, should it exists, wouldn't exist in a vacuum; influences and predispositions would still exist. We in fact know them to exist, so it would be silly for a free-willer to argue that they don't (and in fact, I don't think most do).

 

[Falvlun]

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!

The bolding highlights the snobbery of determinists that I find so off-putting. You are relying on assumptions that you have decided to consider true; your belief is no more completely fact based than mine. And if it is a matter of evidence, basically every single human being experiences free-will; it is not merely a belief, but how we perceive the world, like colors or touch. That's a pretty hefty piece of evidence to so blithely chuck out the window.

 

[Me Myself]

Why is it irrelevant? Having free will doesn't rob you of a nature.

Which concept of nature are you using?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't understand how this supports free will. This is nothing more then the babblings of a contradictory man, and nowhere does it say anything about uncertainty. Even so, the fact that there is uncertainty does absolutely no damage to determinism.sacs

That wasn't incoherent babblings, but how science works. Science doesn't make any hard and fast claims. It makes theories, basically predictions about how the universe works and will continue working based upon past experiments and observations, which are able to be broken and discarded the moment they are shown to be false, incomplete, or contradictory to some new piece of evidence. Science relies upon induction, not facts.

Speaking of which, determinists like to pretend that they know that a perfect unbroken chain of cause-and-effects have occurred since, I don't know, the Big Bang. Where is your proof of this perfect chain? Are you merely extrapolating? That wouldn't be facts; that's induction and assumption.

In addition, how do you know that each cause only produces one possible effect?

 

[1137]

Ever heard of logic? It's this magical ability we have to realize uncaused events do not exist.

 

[Me Myself]

That wasn't incoherent babblings, but how science works. Science doesn't make any hard and fast claims. It makes theories, basically predictions about how the universe works and will continue working based upon past experiments and observations, which are able to be broken and discarded the moment they are shown to be false, incomplete, or contradictory to some new piece of evidence. Science relies upon induction, not facts.

Speaking of which, determinists like to pretend that they know that a perfect unbroken chain of cause-and-effects have occurred since, I don't know, the Big Bang. Where is your proof of this perfect chain? Are you merely extrapolating? That wouldn't be facts; that's induction and assumption.

In addition, how do you know that each cause only produces one possible effect?

huh? Be see everywhere around us that causes have an effect. That part is hardly on need of evidence.

About each cause producing only one possible effect, well, how could it not? Evidence that it doesnt.

I mean the thing is that everything has a cause, and if the cause for anything was not exactly the reason for which said something had happened, then it wouldnt be a "cause".

It is important to notice though, that things happen for many causes at once, it is the synergy of causes which make each effect as it is.

My pen dropped to the floor because I loose the grab on it. It also dropped because I loosed the grab on it outside of a table, and also because there is gravity, etc.

So sure, not every time I loose the grab of my pen it will fall to the floor, but every time I collect all those other causes too (and surely a lot unmentioned causes) then it drops.

But lets say that more than one effect can come from the same exact combination of causes. What then? this would apply to a tornado the same way it applies to a human being. How would the "free will" of a tornado be good enough for most free will proposers?

 

[Skwim]

Ever heard of logic? It's this magical ability we have to realize uncaused events do not exist.

Absolutely.

Things happen either because they are caused (are determined by prior events/conditions) or they are not.

If they are not caused (determined) then they must occurr randomly (I have never seen a third possibility), which means they have an equal chance of not happening as happening.

So:

· If the actions of a creature are determined, which means they cannot be otherwise, the will of that creature is not free.
· If the actions of a creature are entirely random, which means the action could just as well not happen as happen, the will of that creature is not free.
· if the actions of a creature consist of both, the will of that creature is not free.
​

Ergo, freewill---as understood in the freewill V. determinism debate---has no place in our world.

 

[Me Myself]

Absolutely.

Things happen either because they are caused (are determined by prior events/conditions) or they are not.

If they are not caused (determined) then they must occurr randomly (I have never seen a third possibility), which means they have an equal chance of not happening as happening.

So:

· If the actions of a creature are determined, which means they cannot be otherwise, the will of that creature is not free.
· If the actions of a creature are entirely random, which means the action could just as well not happen as happen, the will of that creature is not free.
· if the actions of a creature consist of both, the will of that creature is not free.
​

Ergo, freewill---as understood in the freewill V. determinism debate---has no place in our world.

Also true.

 

[1137]

Absolutely.

Things happen either because they are caused (are determined by prior events/conditions) or they are not.

If they are not caused (determined) then they must occurr randomly (I have never seen a third possibility), which means they have an equal chance of not happening as happening.

So:

· If the actions of a creature are determined, which means they cannot be otherwise, the will of that creature is not free.
· If the actions of a creature are entirely random, which means the action could just as well not happen as happen, the will of that creature is not free.
· if the actions of a creature consist of both, the will of that creature is not free.
​

Ergo, freewill---as understood in the freewill V. determinism debate---has no place in our world.

Agreed and well stated!

 

[crossfire]

That wasn't incoherent babblings, but how science works. Science doesn't make any hard and fast claims. It makes theories, basically predictions about how the universe works and will continue working based upon past experiments and observations, which are able to be broken and discarded the moment they are shown to be false, incomplete, or contradictory to some new piece of evidence. Science relies upon induction, not facts.

Speaking of which, determinists like to pretend that they know that a perfect unbroken chain of cause-and-effects have occurred since, I don't know, the Big Bang. Where is your proof of this perfect chain? Are you merely extrapolating? That wouldn't be facts; that's induction and assumption.

In addition, how do you know that each cause only produces one possible effect?

How many data points/readings are tossed out as being anomalous? Even the most carefully controlled experiments has its share of anomalous readings.

 

[Falvlun]

huh? Be see everywhere around us that causes have an effect. That part is hardly on need of evidence.

How do you know that? Your faith is endearing.

We see that causes have an effect, sure, but we have no proof that an unbroken chain of causes inexorably predicted and determined the set of effects seen today. That part is assumption and extrapolation.

About each cause producing only one possible effect, well, how could it not? Evidence that it doesnt.

That's exactly the thing. A world in which a cause could produce more than one possible effect would look exactly the same to an observer (on the inside) as a world in which each cause has only one possible effect. After all, a cause is still producing an effect.

I mean the thing is that everything has a cause, and if the cause for anything was not exactly the reason for which said something had happened, then it wouldnt be a "cause".

It is important to notice though, that things happen for many causes at once, it is the synergy of causes which make each effect as it is.

My pen dropped to the floor because I loose the grab on it. It also dropped because I loosed the grab on it outside of a table, and also because there is gravity, etc.

So sure, not every time I loose the grab of my pen it will fall to the floor, but every time I collect all those other causes too (and surely a lot unmentioned causes) then it drops.

I'm going to use your pen here to demonstrate why we can't be positive about determinism. You, and determinists, claim that if the exact same set of causes were in place, then the result here is that your pen will always drop. Correct? Okay, then, do the experiment.

Oh wait. You can't. Because you can never set up the experiment so that the same exact set of causes exist. You have a hypothesis that is not falsifiable. That's a huge red flag in science.

I have no problem with determinists wanting to believe whatever they want to believe. But to gloat that it's any more than belief, taken on faith, is to be very ignorant of what you are claiming.

But lets say that more than one effect can come from the same exact combination of causes. What then? this would apply to a tornado the same way it applies to a human being. How would the "free will" of a tornado be good enough for most free will proposers?

For free will to be able to exist there needs to be something to choose between. I do not deny that cause and effect exist; I just don't think that it's set in stone. Let's say that causes produce more than one possible effect. Naturally, the probability of a particular effect happening is going to be higher than it's "isomer"; this assumption is born out by the fact that when you do certain things over and over again, you get the same result. Now, say you introduce something into the equation that can tweak the probabilities; it can make one of the isomers more likely to happen, or give it more of a chance of happening; it is like a catalyst. I suggest that consciousness is just such a catalyst.

 

[Falvlun]

How many data points/readings are tossed out as being anomalous? Even the most carefully controlled experiments has its share of anomalous readings.

Yup, there sure is. What exactly was your point? (sorry!) Maybe they're my isomers.

 

[Me Myself]

How do you know that? Your faith is endearing.

We see that causes have an effect, sure, but we have no proof that an unbroken chain of causes inexorably predicted and determined the set of effects seen today. That part is assumption and extrapolation.


That's exactly the thing. A world in which a cause could produce more than one possible effect would look exactly the same to an observer (on the inside) as a world in which each cause has only one possible effect. After all, a cause is still producing an effect.


I'm going to use your pen here to demonstrate why we can't be positive about determinism. You, and determinists, claim that if the exact same set of causes were in place, then the result here is that your pen will always drop. Correct? Okay, then, do the experiment.

Oh wait. You can't. Because you can never set up the experiment so that the same exact set of causes exist. You have a hypothesis that is not falsifiable. That's a huge red flag in science.

I have no problem with determinists wanting to believe whatever they want to believe. But to gloat that it's any more than belief, taken on faith, is to be very ignorant of what you are claiming.



For free will to be able to exist there needs to be something to choose between. I do not deny that cause and effect exist; I just don't think that it's set in stone. Let's say that causes produce more than one possible effect. Naturally, the probability of a particular effect happening is going to be higher than it's "isomer"; this assumption is born out by the fact that when you do certain things over and over again, you get the same result. Now, say you introduce something into the equation that can tweak the probabilities; it can make one of the isomers more likely to happen, or give it more of a chance of happening; it is like a catalyst. I suggest that consciousness is just such a catalyst.

you cannot evidence this.

Indeed, I give you that my claim is not falsifiable, but the thing is that even if there existd some free will it would be extremely limited, then if we allow "consciousness" to exhert something to matter (let´s remember that even emotions have material forms) we would have a worldview that cannot be entirely materialistic. Also, my claim is not falsifiable more or less in the same way that "there exists and hippo in your closet that has the magical power of being invisible to all senses whether directly and indirectly and part of this magical power is that it is imposible for humans to know without a doubt that he is there"

Sure, my claim above is unfalsifiable too, but what made me arrive to that conclusion besides imagination or a hunch?

I must say I am kind of surprised you would accept such a worldview, that is not completely materialistic.

 

[Falvlun]

Ever heard of logic? It's this magical ability we have to realize uncaused events do not exist.

That's not logic but induction.

 

[Falvlun]

you cannot evidence this.

I can't but neither am I trying to. I'm just trying to come up with a thought-process about how, realistically, free-will could work. I am unwilling to simply chuck out my, and all the rest of humanity's, empirical evidence that free-will exists simply based on some arm-chair philosopher's proclamation that it can't.

Indeed, I give you that my claim is not falsifiable, but the thing is that even if there existd some free will it would be extremely limited, then if we allow "consciousness" to exhert something to matter (let´s remember that even emotions have material forms) we would have a worldview that cannot be entirely materialistic.

Why? I don't need to resort to some magical spirit stuff. Consciousness is simply an emergent property of the brain. It is not a material in itself, no more than emotions are, but it is produced by material things-- brains.

Also, my claim is not falsifiable more or less in the same way that "there exists and hippo in your closet that has the magical power of being invisible to all senses whether directly and indirectly and part of this magical power is that it is imposible for humans to know without a doubt that he is there"

Sure, my claim above is unfalsifiable too, but what made me arrive to that conclusion besides imagination or a hunch?

Hey, it's not my fault that you can't prove an unbroken chain. You can believe in a hard deterministic world all you want. You can have your hippo. Just don't act like your assumption is the only logical and reasonable belief system around.

I must say I am kind of surprised you would accept such a worldview, that is not completely materialistic.

I see nothing dualist about my worldview.

 

[Me Myself]

I can't but neither am I trying to. I'm just trying to come up with a thought-process about how, realistically, free-will could work. I am unwilling to simply chuck out my, and all the rest of humanity's, empirical evidence that free-will exists simply based on some arm-chair philosopher's proclamation that it can't.


Why? I don't need to resort to some magical spirit stuff. Consciousness is simply an emergent property of the brain. It is not a material in itself, no more than emotions are, but it is produced by material things-- brains.


Hey, it's not my fault that you can't prove an unbroken chain. You can believe in a hard deterministic world all you want. You can have your hippo. Just don't act like your assumption is the only logical and reasonable belief system around.


I see nothing dualist about my worldview.

So are you comfortable with the fact that free will in people is as likely as "random ocurrences" happening with, say, everything that is color blue?

You want to propose that for some reason some of the biologic quality of what we call consciousness , breaks general understanding of all the other matter?

 

[Falvlun]

So are you comfortable with the fact that free will in people is as likely as "random ocurrences" happening with, say, everything that is color blue?

How do you know how likely it is? Your belief system has you assigning the probability of free-will existing as very low, but if free-will exists, then that would make it 100% probable, right?

You want to propose that for some reason some of the biologic quality of what we call consciousness , breaks general understanding of all the other matter?

I am simply saying that we really don't know enough to say either way. I think you are being generous in claiming that determinism is beyond doubt in "all other matter". We don't really even know that; we assume it because it makes things a whole lot simpler.

As for consciousness, we really don't know what that is either. Who knows what it can or can't do, or even what it really is. Consciousness itself is a "unique biologic quality" but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Why couldn't free-will-- or as I like to see it, the ability to manipulate the effect probability-- also be a unique capability of living organisms?

 

[crossfire]

Yup, there sure is. What exactly was your point? (sorry!) Maybe they're my isomers.

It reinforces mechanistic bias perception.

 

[crossfire]

How do you know that? Your faith is endearing.

We see that causes have an effect, sure, but we have no proof that an unbroken chain of causes inexorably predicted and determined the set of effects seen today. That part is assumption and extrapolation.

Ad lib is not allowed?

That's exactly the thing. A world in which a cause could produce more than one possible effect would look exactly the same to an observer (on the inside) as a world in which each cause has only one possible effect. After all, a cause is still producing an effect.

We all see different things in ink blots. One cause, different effects.

I'm going to use your pen here to demonstrate why we can't be positive about determinism. You, and determinists, claim that if the exact same set of causes were in place, then the result here is that your pen will always drop. Correct? Okay, then, do the experiment.

Oh wait. You can't. Because you can never set up the experiment so that the same exact set of causes exist. You have a hypothesis that is not falsifiable. That's a huge red flag in science.

Those pesky anomalous readings....

I have no problem with determinists wanting to believe whatever they want to believe. But to gloat that it's any more than belief, taken on faith, is to be very ignorant of what you are claiming.

I don't have a problem with determinists believing it either, especially if it helps them from psychologically blowing a forty amp fuse.

 

[s2a]

Hey guys,
This time I want to discuss / debate how the lack of any free will may change your beliefs. I mean a reality that is absolutely deterministic (with the exception of God if that is what you happen to believe in, as to many God is outside the laws of reality). Assume that free will does not exist (and realize this is likely true). How does this change your beliefs on, well everything. For example, if you are a person who believes we must accept God, the lack of free will means that rejecting God is not our choice, and how could we be punished for not believing in God when God programmed us not to believe.

Discuss.

Hmmmm. well, let's see.

If I lacked free will in choosing to reply to the OP, then you must assume that "fate" designed/destined me to do so.

The rub then becomes, assuming I had no choice in doing so, what is the design/purpose inherent in my action?

If the concept is that free-will is non-existent, the implication is then drawn that any acts on my part are manifestly "purposed" to suit an agenda/outcome not of my own craft or choice. If that is true, then what is the need of any capacities of reason or logic within our species? Any? Again, assuming that we are incapable of affecting outcomes or circumstances by means of reason or logic, what evolutionary advantage does sentience or intellect offer beyond a that of a protozoan, or slime mold?

It can be fairly said the the overwhelming majority of known species today do in fact "suffer" the whims and fancies of "fate", in that they can not consciously choose to alter their circumstances or affect external influences upon their "unwilling" outcomes.

An oak tree can not seek shelter nor escape from a flood, fire, lightning, or wind.

I can, because I am not an oak tree. I can choose what action to take when confronted with untoward circumstance.

I can not think like an oak tree either, because oak trees don't think, or ponder what change their beliefs might encompass, because, well, they can't.


I can. I can appreciate the appeal for some of a life lived without personal choice (aka "free will"), as it provides complete exoneration of any accountability for responsibility or culpability for the circumstances in which you may find yourself confronting...which in a existence of purely orchestrated and irrevocably deterministic outcomes...is most convenient, and more than a bit sad really.

My mother shared with me her favored philosophy when I was quite young (though I do not know where she plucked it from)...

"The Universe lends neither rewards nor punishments...only consequences"

It's very true that there are a great many events that occur with the cosmos every millisecond that we have absolutely no control over whatsoever...and a sizable comet that has our planet in it's crosshairs would most certainly obliterate not only our species, but perhaps nearly every living thing on our little blue orb. Now there is but one example of a concept of free-will being completely moot. Just like an oak tree. You just sit back and take it. Oh well...

However, we exist with our own microcosm of events, circumstances, incidences, and choices that we can very personally effect and reap what we sow, so to speak. Not the least of which is to chop down that non-sentient oak tree and build a shelter, or burn the wood to provide heat, light, and fire for cooking that cave bear I just killed for food. I can use that wood to craft a club, arrows, a spear, or a trap, to hunt that cave bear.

Or, I can just sit and starve, cold and wet, in the knowledge that fate has it in for me no matter what I do.

Oh well?