Free Will Vs Determinism

[shunyadragon]

Free will is an oxymoron. You cannot freely will what you will. At another level, where there is freedom there is no will. IOW, for those who assume doership of deeds the results are causal. This is the case for most of us. But for those who are mere ’Seers’ of the doings of nature, there is no binding to cause effect chain.

...

I believe we have a Will, but it is not necessarily free. I believe humans have the potential of limited free will, not capitalized.

 

[bobhikes]

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?

The problem with determinism and your theory that its either all random or not random starts with first cause. If first cause was a random act, then it would be repeatable. So you would get your first cause and then everything is determined and then at some time another random act occur's just like first cause after the event determined outcomes continue to happen. This random event can be occuring every million years or it could be happening every year. Not knowing how or what this random happening is one can not determine how it effects everything and it is very possible the evolution has developed a way to use this random happening to change outcomes or create will.

Now of course all this could be hogwash if you can just explain first cause as a determined one time event and not a repeating random event.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is the topic that I find the hardest to try and talk my way through. First, let me say this: "I have free will." That means that, in terms of my own decision making, I am absolutely not a determinist of any kind.

But the question becomes "why not?" Why am I not a determinist. I can see the arguments that say, if I know absolutely everything about the state of every element of the universe at any given moment, with sufficient resources I can calculate everything that happens afterwards. But that argument leaves something out -- and that something left out is "is there anything else happening?"

So, let's look at an amplifier. An amp is a simple device -- it has access to some sound (through a microphone, say), and a power source, and some simple circuits that take the received sound, bump it up by using power provided by the power source, and produces, through speakers, a bigger sound. Simple, really.

But what if your speaker and mic are side by side, and there's no circuitry to stop them interacting. For those of us old enough to have played with these things trying to learn electronics, we know it well....there's a sudden horrible SCRREEECHH! noise, and then some of your equipment burns out!

The problem is, we ignored the power source. The mic feeds a bit of sound to the amp, the power source boosts it, the speakers emit it, the mic hears it, the power source boost it, the speakers emit it....and meltdown.

This is an issue having a great deal to do with feedback. And this is where I think that we can find free will in ourselves.

To begin, I think that the very notion of "self," or of consciousness, if you will, is caused by feedback in regions of the brain -- that it is an "emergent" feature of that feedback. And what I see happening as a result is that, the moment that there is even a faint sense of "I" (that I exist and am thinking), then the incredibly complex, interwoven, and certainly feedback-prone brain gets something added -- that "emergent" I. That's the power source that changes all the rules. That's the component that takes the upwelling urge for chocolate ice cream and squashes it with the remembrance of our increasing waistline and interest in the boy next store, and changes that urge to salad and water.

I know I'll never get this explanation right, in such a short space. The idea is too complex. But I'm also convinced that in some way I am onto something important. Tragically, I don't have the intelligence, training or wit to explain it better.

 

[Skwim]

Desire?
I repeat that hard determinism considers humans to be pure mechanistic elements in a mechanistic machine called universe. The presumption is wrong in light of empirical evidences.
...

What empirical evidences are these?

.

 

[Skwim]

The problem with determinism and your theory that its either all random or not random starts with first cause.

Certainly not random because absolutely and utterly random events have never been shown to exist.

If first cause was a random act, then it would be repeatable.

Why?

So you would get your first cause and then everything is determined and then at some time another random act occur's just like first cause after the event determined outcomes continue to happen.

Why would another random act occur, particularly when no random act has been proven to exist? You may as well call upon the services of a genie.

This random event can be occuring every million years or it could be happening every year. Not knowing how or what this random happening is one can not determine how it effects everything and it is very possible the evolution has developed a way to use this random happening to change outcomes or create will.

Now of course all this could be hogwash if you can just explain first cause as a determined one time event and not a repeating random event.

Heck, I can call it hogwash as it sits. HOGWASH!

.

 

[Willamena]

Yes. I think I understand what you are saying. Please see whether the following understanding of mine is okay or not.

Hard determinism presumes a billiard ball Newtonian mechanism in respect of self determination. But, I understand that self determination can range from pure unconscious instinctive desire driven reactions, which have binding consequences (on one hand) to self-less freedom (on the other hand). In between lie most of our actions which are governed by three factors in combination: deterministic cause-effect, random chance, and self effort.

@Skwim does not consider the effects of the 2nd and 3rd factors at all. At all stages, humans are free to employ self determination, with lesser or greater freedom.

If this freedom was not available, @Skwim should not expect that we could ever rationally agree to his arguments. If there was no freedom, then science would be meaningless.

I repeat that hard determinism considers humans to be pure mechanistic elements in a mechanistic machine called universe. The presumption is wrong in light of empirical evidences.

...

RIght. Hard determination denies self, in that it attributes things elsewhere. Instead of pointing at the "I" in its explanations, it points at the hand and all the mechanisms involved. If asked to include "I," it will talk about mind/brain and all the faculties involved.

A fine case was once made that the determinist and the free-willer look at the same world, but partition it differently. That partitioning is a product of conditioning, convention, and choice.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem with determinism and your theory that its either all random or not random starts with first cause. If first cause was a random act, then it would be repeatable. So you would get your first cause and then everything is determined and then at some time another random act occur's just like first cause after the event determined outcomes continue to happen. This random event can be occuring every million years or it could be happening every year. Not knowing how or what this random happening is one can not determine how it effects everything and it is very possible the evolution has developed a way to use this random happening to change outcomes or create will.

Now of course all this could be hogwash if you can just explain first cause as a determined one time event and not a repeating random event.

The reason why it is hogwash or worse is the use of randomness here is totally out of touch with reality and the actually use and definition of random. With hogwash you at least end up with clean hogs.

First, randomness is negated at the gitgo and does not exist as you describe it regardless of whether Free Will exists in one degree or another. The only observed randomness is the unpredictability of any one event as to the possible outcomes. Yes, natural deterministic operations are at work in everything even when there is more than one possible outcome of a cause and effect event.

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.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand how nature vs nurture works, experience, etc and how those can influence choice. But it's still possible to go against all that and make a different choice than you've been influenced to. Otherwise how would people escape occults. Ones that was born into and lived in for the first 20 years of life. Yet still have an epiphany one day and leave the occult even though they've been bred, born, and groomed into the lifestyle and know nothing but that.

So how do you think such a choice gets made? The thing is that either it is because of some reason that is (at least in principle) traceable back to some aspect of their character and personality that is, in turn, due to their nature, nurture, and life's experience up to that point, or it isn't.

If it isn't, then, at least in part, it must be for none of those reasons. That part or influence can't have come from anything to do with their actual personality or anything to do with the circumstances - so it must (at least effectively, with respect to them) be random. I really don't see how something random can be a manifestation of any sort of "free will".

More formally, either minds are operating as deterministic systems, or they aren't, and if they aren't, then there is an element of randomness involved.

I would hazard a guess that minds are basically deterministic but chaotic (in the mathematical sense) - which would go some way towards explaining situations such as you describe.

 

[Enoch07]

So how do you think such a choice gets made?

By weighing the choices and the possible outcomes and then choosing the best course of action that I see fit.

The thing is that either it is because of some reason that is (at least in principle) traceable back to some aspect of their character and personality that is, in turn, due to their nature, nurture, and life's experience up to that point, or it isn't.

No doubt our choices are influenced to some extent by our experiences etc. But I see people make choices detrimental to themselves all the time. Which goes against their past personal experiences.

So imo that's the evidence free will.

 

[ratiocinator]

In between lie most of our actions which are governed by three factors in combination: deterministic cause-effect, random chance, and self effort.

Self-effort involves a choice and that choice must either be entirely due to some set of reasons (cause and effect) or there is some randomness. That is, it must be some combination of the first two.

If this freedom was not available, @Skwim should not expect that we could ever rationally agree to his arguments. If there was no freedom, then science would be meaningless.

Why?

I repeat that hard determinism considers humans to be pure mechanistic elements in a mechanistic machine called universe. The presumption is wrong in light of empirical evidences.

What evidence?

 

[ratiocinator]

By weighing the choices and the possible outcomes and then choosing the best course of action that I see fit.

Fine. So in the end they do what they most want to do given all the considerations. They didn't choose the set of impulses and desires they weighed up, that is down to who they are. What you are describing is entirely consistent with a deterministic mind.

No doubt our choices are influenced to some extent by our experiences etc. But I see people make choices detrimental to themselves all the time. Which goes against their past personal experiences.

Which just means that they wanted to make that choice more than the other options - perhaps because of a moral code or sense of duty they had built up overt their lives. Again, this is entirely consistent with a fully deterministic mind.

 

[Enoch07]

What you are describing is entirely consistent with a deterministic mind.

Not when they chose options detrimental to themselves.

Which just means that they wanted to make that choice more than the other options - perhaps because of a moral code or sense of duty they had built up overt their lives. Again, this is entirely consistent with a fully deterministic mind.

I'll give a simple hypothetical example.

You burn your hand on the stove by touching the glowing red metal.

Now you have pain and memory to reinforce to not perform that action again.

Yet some people chose, to their detriment to repeatedly burn themselves. Even though it cause pain, even though they complain about the stove burning them. Yet they chose over and over this same detrimental action.

 

[atanu]

What empirical evidences are these?

First, I need to differentiate our world-views, so that readers may understand what I am saying. Both of us probably believe that our actions ultimately can be reduced to the first cause. Which means that both of us ascribe to determinism.

But in your case the first cause is related to the non phenomenal material ultimates and their interactions from a time past -- billions of years past. The material ultimates are characterised by mass, charge, momentum etc., but supposedly magically they have given rise to phenomenality. In your account, this, happens mechanistically and therefore on account of cause and effect no action of ours can be of free volition. Any and all actions are therefore fully caused.

If that is the case, then how do we do science? Is there any meaning in any enquiry process? As another poster asked, If I were to give you a compelling evidence:

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

I think that hard determinism is self refuting. If our discussion and the result thereof was pre-determined at Big Bang, why we discuss? Why you discuss and raise this point? What will be will be. What is our role? What is legal system doing?

OTOH, in my worldview, consciousness: the ability to discern constitute the ontological primitive. In this case also, whatever transpires at the root consciousness level comes to pass and hence human conditions are pre-determined.

But in this case, the ontological primitive is not separated by time-space from the self. Consciousness is true NOW and HERE. So, I understand that self determination can range from pure unconscious instinctive desire driven reactions, which have binding consequences (on one hand) to self-less freedom (on the other hand). Example of first case can be an animal and example of the second case can be a Buddha. Spanning these two extremes, lie most of our actions which are governed by three factors in combination: deterministic cause-effect, random chance, and self effort.

At all stages, humans are free to employ self determination, with lesser or greater freedom. If this freedom was not available, we should not expect that we could ever rationally argue and change view. If there was no freedom, then science would be meaningless.

The fact that in double slit experiment our conscious intention can change the behaviour of photons passing through slits is the most prominent evidence that our intention matters. Plasticity of brain and our ability to change brain structures is another evidence.

There are many evidences that constitute incontrovertible proof that our consciousness (competence to discern) is not mechanism and hence not subject to determinism. OTOH, our body-mind (memory, I sense, feelings and intellect) are born of mechanism and are thus subject to determinism.

In consciousness first ontology, there is the universal non dual consciousness and there are particular consciousnesses. Metaphorically, this may be seen as a river (universal) with its many whirlpools (particulars). At body-mind level, one has some freedom over the local particular consciousness. We can decide to construct a house and a house will likely come up. But one has the potential to gain mastery over both the local and the universal consciousness, - a la Buddha or like any self realised yogi.

So, I repeat, in my understanding, self determination can range from pure unconscious instinctive desire driven reactions, which have binding consequences (on one hand) to self-less freedom (on the other hand). Example of first case can be an animal and example of the second case can be a Buddha. Spanning these two extremes, lie most of our actions which are governed by three factors in combination: deterministic cause-effect, random chance, and self effort.

Note: One may wish to see Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism (posts 81 and later) for a record of diverse evidences that favour the consciousness first ontology.

...

 

[bobhikes]

Certainly not random because absolutely and utterly random events have never been shown to exist.


Why?


Why would another random act occur, particularly when no random act has been proven to exist? You may as well call upon the services of a genie.



Heck, I can call it hogwash as it sits. HOGWASH!

.

You have only 2 options everything always existed and only forms change, nothing existed and some random event started everything. Pick one and I'll show you how determinism won't work. If you want to say the universe was nothing but started with a determine event, that means an itelligence always existed to create the determined event, which is the same as saying everything always existed.

 

[bobhikes]

The reason why it is hogwash or worse is the use of randomness here is totally out of touch with reality and the actually use and definition of random. With hogwash you at least end up with clean hogs.

First, randomness is negated at the gitgo and does not exist as you describe it regardless of whether Free Will exists in one degree or another. The only observed randomness is the unpredictability of any one event as to the possible outcomes. Yes, natural deterministic operations are at work in everything even when there is more than one possible outcome of a cause and effect event.

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.

I agree with @Skwim on the fact that to have Free will you need randomness, I disagree with his statement that everything need to be random. As for random acts they don't have to be big but should be fairly frequent. For example the random mutations that drive evolution. We do know that in life, it is randomness that drives growth. As @Skwim has said we also have found randomness in the quantum world. The quantum world is present in our mind. All life had to do was to evolve a method of using this randomness and Will becomes available. I do not believe in Free will but the Will to stop. Deterministic forces drives us to a choice and we have the ability to not take that path. Once a random act is done or created it becomes reality, it can not be undone. This does not mean the random act or creation is not random it just means it is now apart of creation. This is why people can't find the random act or creation because it is part of reality for all to see.

 

[Earthtank]

Nope. Thing is, you only "decided" what you did because you couldn't "decide" any differently. Remember, there's no such thing as choosing.

.

Your logic is brain damaged. Sorry.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not when they chose options detrimental to themselves.

Why not? It would just mean that they want something more than they want to care for themselves. For example to please somebody else, or perhaps they think a cause is more important.

There is nothing inconsistent with determinism.

I'll give a simple hypothetical example.

You burn your hand on the stove by touching the glowing red metal.

Now you have pain and memory to reinforce to not perform that action again.

Yet some people chose, to their detriment to repeatedly burn themselves. Even though it cause pain, even though they complain about the stove burning them. Yet they chose over and over this same detrimental action.

And....? Psychologists make a living trying to understand why do that sort of thing. You seem to be confusing determinism with rationality.

 

[ratiocinator]

The fact that in double slit experiment our conscious intention can change the behaviour of photons passing through slits is the most prominent evidence that our intention matters.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the result of the double slit experiment has anything to do with consciousness - that is (a minority) interpretation - one of many.

 

[atanu]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the result of the double slit experiment has anything to do with consciousness - that is (a minority) interpretation - one of many.

What do you mean? I am not talking of interpretation. I am talking of the experimental conditions.

Experimenters intention to install or not to install a camera does influence behaviour. Do you contest this fact?

 

[Nakosis]

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

From your link...
Free will can be defined by three conditions (Walter, 2001). The first one is the “ability to do otherwise.” This is an intuitive concept: to be free, one has to have at least two alternatives or courses of action between which to choose. If one has an involuntary spasm of the mouth, for example, one is not in the position to choose whether to twist one’s mouth or not. The second condition is the “control over one’s choices.” The person who acts must be the same who decides what to do. To be granted free will, one must be the author of one’s choices, without the interference of people and of mechanisms outside of one’s reach. This is what we call agency, that is, being and feeling like the “owner” of one’s decisions and actions. The third condition is the “responsiveness to reasons”: a decision can’t be free if it is the effect of a random choice, but it must be rationally motivated. If I roll a dice to decide whom to marry, my choice cannot be said to be free, even though I will freely choose to say “I do”. On the contrary, if I choose to marry a specific person for their ideas and my deep love for them, then my decision will be free.


First the ability to do otherwise. You reach a street corner. Do you have the ability to turn left or right? If nothing is impeding you travel, yes you have the ability to turn left or right.
Second, control over one's choices. Are you the one deciding which direction to turn. If you are the one consciously making that decision, then yes.
Third, it can't be a random choice. IOW you must have had a rational reason to turn left or right. You wanted to take the scenic route, you wanted to take the short route. You wanted to stop by the ice cream shop... etc.

Seems obvious as set forth here that free will is a thing.

The biggest problem in free will debates IMO is defining free will. Folks who argue for determinism seem to prefer defining free will as something which can't possibly exist.