Free Will Vs Determinism

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just wondering ...

if I were to give you a compelling counter-argument

• would you recognize it as such?
• would you change your position?
• how do you know?

If you have an argument that I haven't heard yet, I will give it due consideration. ...

You've just done a masterful job demonstrating the exact opposite.

 

[Skwim]

I'm generally with you as I also see "free will" as an illusion.
But there are some caveats to it. 1. We have the illusion of free will for a reason. It was helpful for us to develop as a social and, ultimately, moral species. Therefore it is helpful to act <i>as if</i> we had free will. I.e. praising moral deeds and blaming (and punishing) immoral ones.

Living the illusion is simply another one of those things we are caused to do.

2. You didn't mention dualism as an opposing idea to the deterministic view of free will. Has no-one brought that up yet? I could play devils advocate to test your idea if you want.

I've never found it relevant.

3. There might be true randomness in our thoughts. The sodium canals in a neuron are so small that the chance of opening or not may rest on quantum effects. (But randomness is not freedom.)

A possibility, but one that fails to save free will.

4. Sooner or later someone will mention the Libet experiment. You'll find a description at Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia

Yeah, I remember reading about it some time ago, but as I recall there were a number of criticisms of it and Libet's conclusions. Most importantly that the “ramp up” to the intent was not been shown to be without a cause.

.

.

 

[Skwim]

The fact that there are more than one outcome for any cause and effect event leave open the possibility of a compatibilist possibility of limited Free Will.

Then what do you think the reason is for effect B happening and not effect A in the diagram below?

.

 

[Skwim]

But another person would have done it...so we all choose differently.
Different wills.

Choosing.

 

[Skwim]

I don't agree with your binary choice. It's like the argument between nature and nurture - both may be true to varying degrees as the current state of research illustrates.

I find this article to be illustrative Free Will Is Real

And this: free will can exist even if determinism is true
and the rest of the article Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It

List says "there is no support for a deterministic picture of psychology," as if there's support for a free will picture of psychology? If there is I fail to see it.


And sorry, but Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It is just to dense and long to bother with. Have you actually read it all?

.

 

[Skwim]

But another person would have done it...so we all choose differently.
Different wills.

We're all directed differently.

.

 

[Nakosis]

Then let's hear your definition. Perhaps it will be better.

.

The way I view free will is, the ability to choose between alternate paths/choices independent of any current external influences.

IOW, someone hits you in the stomach, there are a few paths you can take from that point.

A-you can hit them back
B-you can forgive them, ran away, call the police lots of things really.

Any choice among A or B would have been influenced by the initial action of being hit. The act being an influence on your choice.

What if one made a choice that wasn't caused by being hit. They desired to go to the park. So instead of reacting to the attack, they continued on to the park.

So there is a number of choice one can make at any moment. Some of those choices would be caused by the current situation one is in, or one could choose to do what they wanted not influenced by anything externally that is happening in the present.

This is leading somewhere but if the definition isn't acceptable, then probably not.

 

[Enoch07]

First, very well thought out argument.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless at least one of the causal determinants leading up to the event in question had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home.

Of course you wouldn't end up at your neighbors house. Your goal was to reach your home, not your neighbors home. Circumstance has nothing to do with it. Choice is the only difference. You could have chosen to go to your neighbors house. But you didn't you wanted to go home.

There was no freedom to do any differently.

Sure there is. You could easily have chosen to go to your neighbors house. But you didn't. Of course itd be awkward when your neighbor asked why you had visited with no other reason than you just wanted to. But that's a social aspect of the problem that has nothing to do with your free will. You may chose to not do something because of social acceptance/standards, but that doesn't take away free will. I suppose only someone with Aspergers or other socially inept people could understand, but it's still true regardless.

 

[Skwim]

First, very well thought out argument.

Thank you.

Of course you wouldn't end up at your neighbors house. Your goal was to reach your home, not your neighbors home. Circumstance has nothing to do with it. Choice is the only difference. You could have chosen to go to your neighbors house. But you didn't you wanted to go home.

It wasn't a matter of choosing anything, but following the same route:

"If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home."​

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then what do you think the reason is for effect B happening and not effect A in the diagram below?

View attachment 33278

.

Natural Laws, and the previous chain of cause and effect events. The problem of the uncertainty of your diagram is it does not address how many possible outcomes for each cause and effect event. It is obvious in many cases there are a number of possible alternatives of each cause and effect outcome.

It is rather two dimensional without explanation.

 

[Enoch07]

It wasn't a matter of choosing anything, but following the same route:

Ok, my question is then why are you arriving at home then?

If all you are doing is following the same route home, you will always arrive at your home. I get that parts and understand what you are saying.

But later on you said you could take different routes and still arrive at home.

If you take different routes, knowing that the usual route takes you home, yet you still arrive at home. That would mean your destination was indeed home to begin with. The choice of choosing to go home remains the same regardless of what route you've taken. But you could chose as I said to go to your neighbors house, which also wouldn't matter which route you take because that is your destination. Even if the routes and destination are almost exactly the same (I'm assuming by neighbor you mean next door or across the street and not neighbor as in the guy 15 blocks down the street).

So that's why I think free will does exist. Because you do have a choice of what your destination will be (in your example) If no free will you couldn't chose it imo.

Honestly it sounds like to me that people who don't believe in free will just lack spontaneity to me. And I don't mean that as in insult. Just that I can be quite spontaneous and love to change direction and do erratic things to shake up the monotony of life time to time.

Once on the drive home from work. I said "eff it", I'm going on vacation. So without even going home I went to a small tourist town about 2 hours drive away. Bought new clothes to change into, rented a hotel room, and enjoyed the tiny little tourist town for the weekend (a lot of drinking lol). Then headed home late Sunday to be ready for work again on Monday.

Anyways just my thoughts and opinions on it. Everyone is allowed to believe what they want so I want it to be clear I'm not debating or trying to change anyones mind.

 

[MikeDwight]

Ugh. Ow.. Skwim painful. Your Post is so PAINFUL. You are on a religion forum using words made by religious people. And if you were on a philosophy forum people would take you a fool. And when you use religion words as philosophy words on a religious forum people have to slow down like you are talking about something. People Like John Calvin, or my video is Martin Luther, FLASH, MADE something, they RESPONDED to one thing and they MADE something else, and every day we flip a light switch in catholocism, God is going to send you to hell, priest-reponse-firstresponder brigade, pulls up with lights, PULL OVER, sins forgiven, flip the switch you're going to heaven soon. Oh you saw a butt today, or tomorrow, al your work in the Lord is Forfeit, its Nothing, you're lightswitch flipped back to hell, paying the church, begging some guy in a building on these steps. John Calvin wrote PREDESTINATION, it must have been the blessed work of a GOD that people responded to, not what you're trying to put in a decrepit library.

 

[MikeDwight]

Skwim is on the Philosophy forum in a religious forum where, wanting religion to be part of my philosophy class was a hardline no from the professor, they start at two totally different points, wanting to build schemas. Fine, forget it. Totally blew my mind. Hey like thumbs-up then. that's cool.

She'd say what you need to do is make a very large logic circle that doesn't loop in on itself for a very long time. What's Determinism going to explain for you. Determinism suggests human logic can have a set series of outcomes. We're all chemistry. A really smart machine could come up with an equation that knows everything that's happening. Philosophical determinism.

 

[shunyadragon]

A comment I will address more later. The nature of our existence is indeed determinist based on the objective verifiable evidence, but hard determinism is not justified by the evidence. The variation in the outcome of cause and effect events where there are many variables is described by Chaos Theory result in many possible outcomes as in the human decision making process and, by the way, weather.Regardless of the variation in the outcomes they are not random of unknown cause, but caused by the Laws of Nature. All outcomes are thus constrained by limited outcomes.

The possibility of an element of Free Will in this process cannot be eliminated, and there may be degree of Free Will described in variations of compatibilism. What is not possible is the concept of Libertarian Free Will.

 

[Milton Platt]

Several years ago, eight to be exact, I posted my reason for dismissing the idea of free will and adopting hard determinism. Because the topic of free will vs determinism hasn't been discussed in some time and a lot of newcomers have come on board RF I thought I'd bring it up again. The following is taken from my original post.



Discussions about free will usually center around an affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of such conversations, many well thought out, others not so much. Whatever the case, there's frequently been a problem with what is meant by "will" and "free will," so much so that the issue can quickly become mired in misunderstanding. To avoid this I've found the following definitions to be on point and helpful.

Will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences.


The notion of free will is important to many because without it would mean each of us is nothing more than an automaton, a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of instructions, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If people lack freedom of choice how can they be blamed for what they do, or be deserving of any praise laid on them? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is regarded as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the free will issue is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think another valid way way of looking at free will is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished. "I got a haircut yesterday, but I could just as well have had a hot dog instead."

Those who most ardently disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused we could not have done differently---no, you could not have chosen to have a hot dog--- therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic question: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice" or any of its cognates.


Here's how I see it.

There are only two ways actions can take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely and utterly random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land, it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, has been suggested to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on super-atomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that easily negate randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless at least one of the causal determinants leading up to the event in question had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we can never do any any differently other than what we are caused to do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and intervening outside events (also causes) and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it is. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, free will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

This means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. As I mentioned, if you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course, we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints,but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Thoughts?

I generally agree with you. We have the illusion of free will, because we do, indeed make many choices every day. However, all of our decisions are weighed by the cumulative experiences we have had over our lifetime, the knowledge we have accumulated in that lifetime, and the underlying genetics of us as individuals. We cannot possibly be conscious of all the nuanced things that affect any of our decisions. There is also evidence that our brain has made decisions for us before we are consciously aware that a decision has been made. So now the subconscious comes into direct play.

 

[Willamena]

Several years ago, eight to be exact, I posted my reason for dismissing the idea of free will and adopting hard determinism. Because the topic of free will vs determinism hasn't been discussed in some time and a lot of newcomers have come on board RF I thought I'd bring it up again. The following is taken from my original post.



Discussions about free will usually center around an affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of such conversations, many well thought out, others not so much. Whatever the case, there's frequently been a problem with what is meant by "will" and "free will," so much so that the issue can quickly become mired in misunderstanding. To avoid this I've found the following definitions to be on point and helpful.

Will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences.


The notion of free will is important to many because without it would mean each of us is nothing more than an automaton, a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of instructions, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If people lack freedom of choice how can they be blamed for what they do, or be deserving of any praise laid on them? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is regarded as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the free will issue is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think another valid way way of looking at free will is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished. "I got a haircut yesterday, but I could just as well have had a hot dog instead."

Those who most ardently disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused we could not have done differently---no, you could not have chosen to have a hot dog--- therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic question: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice" or any of its cognates.


Here's how I see it.

There are only two ways actions can take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely and utterly random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land, it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, has been suggested to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on super-atomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that easily negate randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless at least one of the causal determinants leading up to the event in question had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we can never do any any differently other than what we are caused to do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and intervening outside events (also causes) and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it is. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, free will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

This means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. As I mentioned, if you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course, we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints,but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Thoughts?

Rationally, actions are not caused, so neither can they be uncaused; hence, to set a false dichotomy of "caused or uncaused" is nonsense. And useless. And meaningless. Harkening back to the 18th Century, Mr. David Hume, and billiard balls.

 

[Skwim]

Natural Laws, and the previous chain of cause and effect events.

But the previous chain of cause and effect events would include any natural law, thereby determining that B rather than A occurred.

The problem of the uncertainty of your diagram is it does not address how many possible outcomes for each cause and effect event.

It doesn't matter because all we're interested is the moment of "either A or B."
So there is no uncertainty. Just as 7 +18 - 22 + 1345 - 6 + 8 + 76 can only equal 1,426,(and not 1,425 or 1,427) all the cause/effect events that led up to the point of either A or B can only lead to B. There is no other possible outcome at the moment of "either A or B."

Just like some number(s) in the chain of 7 +18 - 22 + 1345 - 6 + 8 + 76 would have to be different in order to get the sum of 1,425 or 1,427, some cause/effect event(s) would have to be different so that A rather than B occurred. BUT B did occur which means that A was excluded as a possibility.

.

 

[Skwim]

Ok, my question is then why are you arriving at home then?

If all you are doing is following the same route home, you will always arrive at your home. I get that parts and understand what you are saying.

But later on you said you could take different routes and still arrive at home.

If you take different routes, knowing that the usual route takes you home, yet you still arrive at home. That would mean your destination was indeed home to begin with. The choice of choosing to go home remains the same regardless of what route you've taken. But you could chose as I said to go to your neighbors house, which also wouldn't matter which route you take because that is your destination. Even if the routes and destination are almost exactly the same (I'm assuming by neighbor you mean next door or across the street and not neighbor as in the guy 15 blocks down the street).

One more time. My remark wasn't about choosing anything, BUT the way a series of cause effects inevitably lead to only one outcome. Here, I made a quick map of two routes that lead to my home and not to that of my neighbor. Think of every turn as the result of a certain cause/effect incident that makes me turn one way and not the other. Inevitably both had to land me at home. One required 5 cause/effect incidents and the other required 9.

.

 

[Skwim]

Rationally, actions are not caused,

Then how are they manifested?

.

 

[Enoch07]

One more time. My remark wasn't about choosing anything, BUT the way a series of cause effects inevitably lead to only one outcome. Here, I made a quick map of two routes that lead to my home and not to that of my neighbor. Think of every turn as the result of a certain cause/effect incident that makes me turn one way and not the other. Inevitably both had to land me at home. One required 5 cause/effect incidents and the other required 9.


View attachment 33290


.

I understand but its just speculation. There is no way to prove that every choice you made is because of an influence and not of your own will.

Like I say it's a very well though out argument though.