free will vs natural determinism

[Iti oj]

Do you think it matters if we know the causes that made us "act of our own volition"?

The free will proponents ignores the causes that aren't obvious to them, and the determinists assumes there are causes even if they are not all known.

yes, we can know more about out selves, as a race and as individuals. Also it would change how we deal with addicts and criminals and the mentally ill. also welcome to RF, good post.

 

[Slorri]

yes, we can know more about out selves, as a race and as individuals. Also it would change how we deal with addicts and criminals and the mentally ill. also welcome to RF, good post.

It sure would.
Sometimes it is argued that determinism says that criminals are not responsible for their actions. And that would lead us to seek the causes for their criminality elsewhere. While as free will proponents put all the responsibility on the individual. No need to ban violent movies, because we should be able to resist being influenced by them if we have free will; No need to ban tobacco advertisement, etc.

Free will vs determinism makes quite a difference in our world view.

And those that are into public relations / propaganda sure have learned to misuse people's belief in their free will.

 

[Iti oj]

It sure would.
Sometimes it is argued that determinism says that criminals are not responsible for their actions. And that would lead us to seek the causes for their criminality elsewhere. While as free will proponents put all the responsibility on the individual. No need to ban violent movies, because we should be able to resist being influenced by them if we have free will; No need to ban tobacco advertisement, etc.

Free will vs determinism makes quite a difference in our world view.

And those that are into public relations / propaganda sure have learned to misuse people's belief in their free will.

certainly! although, I image people would/should be help responsible for their actions. IE a murder is a murderer and shouldn't be on the streets either way. IMO it makes forgiveness easier. Perhaps once we learn the truth of this matter we will have a more holistic society. What of capitalism, it sure uses free will to justify its self.

Which camp do you fall into and does it change the experience?

 

[Slorri]

certainly! although, I image people would/should be help responsible for their actions. IE a murder is a murderer and shouldn't be on the streets either way. IMO it makes forgiveness easier. Perhaps once we learn the truth of this matter we will have a more holistic society. What of capitalism, it sure uses free will to justify its self.

Which camp do you fall into and does it change the experience?

I myself am a determinist, and a hard one at that. Been a determinist for all my life, and I have never met any argument to show how our will can be unattached to, or free from, the world. Everything relates, and our will is no exception. The trick is to realize that what we experience as our "will" is a result of various causes, including our subconscious, the collective subconscious, memory and environment. Our "will" gets "born" at some point in our mind, and we are forced to believe that we created it, out of thin air. It is an illusion. That point when our "will" got "born" was when we became aware of it.

People should indeed be held responsible for their actions. To believe that we are not responsible just because our will is not free is another trick of the mind. The responsibility is part of the causal chain. But of course, there are many sides to this as well. What if we gets angry because of some side effect of the medication we are on, or what if we are affected by subliminal messages in the cartoon we are watching?

 

[Cephus]

It really depends on how you define your terms. I see a lot of people defining "free will" in completely absurd ways. It is not the ability to make any decision at all, you can't exercise your "free will" and choose to flap your arms and fly, that's not a physical possibility. Likewise, I see people thinking about natural determinism at the quantum level, something we don't even have a solid understanding of yet. The reality is, we can make choices freely between possible alternatives. If you come to an intersection, you can choose to go left, you can choose to go right or you can choose to go straight. Nothing constrains you to do any of those things, barring brick walls and the like. That's free will. Given the same choice three times, you can make three different decisions. Whether you will do so or not, that comes down to preference, etc. You are not being stopped from doing so by an external source.

 

[JerryL]

The reality is, we can make choices freely between possible alternatives. If you come to an intersection, you can choose to go left, you can choose to go right or you can choose to go straight. Nothing constrains you to do any of those things, barring brick walls and the like. That's free will. Given the same choice three times, you can make three different decisions. Whether you will do so or not, that comes down to preference, etc. You are not being stopped from doing so by an external source.

The conditions are different three times. You have the same choice that a calculator has.

Forget being given the same choice: imagine you actually rewind time and play it forward again.

Will the person chose the same direction every time (this isn't groundhog day, they don't have some magical memory that time is replaying)?
Yes? Then their "choice" was entirely dictated by the state of the universe (including their brain); it isn't free
No? Then the deciding factor was a random element; it isn't choice.

 

[Cephus]

The conditions are different three times. You have the same choice that a calculator has.

No, a calculator can only come up with one solution based on the situational input. I can stand at that intersection and make three different choices in three seconds. You cannot demonstrate that the situation has changed at all.

Forget being given the same choice: imagine you actually rewind time and play it forward again.

Will the person chose the same direction every time (this isn't groundhog day, they don't have some magical memory that time is replaying)?
Yes? Then their "choice" was entirely dictated by the state of the universe (including their brain); it isn't free
No? Then the deciding factor was a random element; it isn't choice.

Whether they would make the same choice, that doesn't mean they must make the same choice. Since you don't have time travel technology, you can't actually test your assertion.

 

[Iti oj]

It really depends on how you define your terms. I see a lot of people defining "free will" in completely absurd ways. It is not the ability to make any decision at all, you can't exercise your "free will" and choose to flap your arms and fly, that's not a physical possibility. Likewise, I see people thinking about natural determinism at the quantum level, something we don't even have a solid understanding of yet. The reality is, we can make choices freely between possible alternatives. If you come to an intersection, you can choose to go left, you can choose to go right or you can choose to go straight. Nothing constrains you to do any of those things, barring brick walls and the like. That's free will. Given the same choice three times, you can make three different decisions. Whether you will do so or not, that comes down to preference, etc. You are not being stopped from doing so by an external source.

I disagree, how was that decision made?

 

[Cephus]

I disagree, how was that decision made?

We don't know exactly, we're still learning a great deal about the brain and how it operates. Based on some internal criteria, we make a decision given the available options and our own individual preferences. I can choose to get chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream. I may prefer one over the other which might color my choice but the choice is mine and even if I prefer vanilla to chocolate or vice versa, I still have the ability to pick between the two options.

 

[allfoak]

This subject is an oldie but goodie.

Rather than see this as one or the other having to be correct, i see them both being correct, like the yin and yang are both correct.
These two subjects are polar opposites, which means they have a balance point.
That would mean that they are both true and both false depending on what kind of a day I am having.
I like to take credit for the good days as if I made them happen and blame God for the bad days that could never be my fault.

Temporal paradox What happens when a time traveler does things in the past that prevent him from doing them in the first place?

 

[JerryL]

No, a calculator can only come up with one solution based on the situational input. I can stand at that intersection and make three different choices in three seconds. You cannot demonstrate that the situation has changed at all.

You are saying that I cannot demonstrate that the universe has changed from one second to the next? Poppy-cock.

One clear difference is that one second earlier you had made a decision that you had not made one second before that.

Whether they would make the same choice, that doesn't mean they must make the same choice. Since you don't have time travel technology, you can't actually test your assertion.

I didn't say they would make the same choice. I said there are only two possible outcomes. Either they would make the same choice or they would not

I covered both outcomes and showed how neither would allow for free will. You did not address that at all.

 

[Cephus]

You are saying that I cannot demonstrate that the universe has changed from one second to the next? Poppy-cock.

No, I'm saying you cannot point to anything specific that has changed that would alter one's decision. Claiming it does and showing it does are two different things. You're the one making the claim, it rests entirely on your shoulders to back it up. Welcome to logic 101.

 

[JerryL]

We don't know exactly, we're still learning a great deal about the brain and how it operates. Based on some internal criteria, we make a decision given the available options and our own individual preferences. I can choose to get chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream. I may prefer one over the other which might color my choice but the choice is mine and even if I prefer vanilla to chocolate or vice versa, I still have the ability to pick between the two options.

We understand the basics of a neural network better than you think. We can even replicate it (though not to the complexity level of the human brain; Artificial insect intelligence (they make decisions about left vs right too) is surprisingly advanced.

But it doesn't actually matter. I can assume that the decision is made by your metaphysical soul if you prefer. Either the soul would always make the same choice given truly identical conditions (no freedom), or there's a random factor (no will).

 

[JerryL]

No, I'm saying you cannot point to anything specific that has changed that would alter one's decision. Claiming it does and showing it does are two different things. You're the one making the claim, it rests entirely on your shoulders to back it up. Welcome to logic 101.

I covered both outcomes and showed how neither would allow for free will. You did not address that at all.... again.

 

[Cephus]

I covered both outcomes and showed how neither would allow for free will. You did not address that at all.... again.

No, you made statements about both outcomes and said nobody could prove you wrong. That doesn't make you right. You actually have to produce evidence that you are, in fact, correct. When do you think you'll do so?

 

[Cephus]

We understand the basics of a neural network better than you think. We can even replicate it (though not to the complexity level of the human brain; Artificial insect intelligence (they make decisions about left vs right too) is surprisingly advanced.

We can replicate the effects, not the form. Artificial intelligence isn't built like a human brain.

But it doesn't actually matter. I can assume that the decision is made by your metaphysical soul if you prefer. Either the soul would always make the same choice given truly identical conditions (no freedom), or there's a random factor (no will).

Sorry, no evidence for a soul. You're still just repeating the same assertions without demonstrating the assertions are true. Just saying the same thing over and over again without presenting any evidence doesn't prove a thing except your ability to be repetitive.

 

[Skwim]

I myself am a determinist, and a hard one at that.

People should indeed be held responsible for their actions. To believe that we are not responsible just because our will is not free is another trick of the mind. The responsibility is part of the causal chain. But of course, there are many sides to this as well. What if we gets angry because of some side effect of the medication we are on, or what if we are affected by subliminal messages in the cartoon we are watching?

I find this surprising coming from a hard determinist. Hard determinism asserts that all actions are the result of a cause/effect chain of events the envitably lead to a specific outcome. An outcome that can not be anything other than what it is. A person holds up a Jewelry store because he cannot do otherwise. He is under the explicit dictates of prior causes. To hold him responsible is to assume he could have done otherwise, but the fact is, he couldn't. Holding him morally responsible is like blaming a rock for where it lies. Hard determinism asserts that the will is not free. That to have done differently is not possible. Coupled with this is the notion of in-determinism, the state in which utter randomness rules, or co-rules with determinism. Taken individually or together they make freewill a folly. An illusion at best.

 

[JerryL]

No, you made statements about both outcomes and said nobody could prove you wrong. That doesn't make you right. You actually have to produce evidence that you are, in fact, correct. When do you think you'll do so?

You've not addressed it at all. Offer a third alternative or you are reversing burden of proof.

We can replicate the effects, not the form. Artificial intelligence isn't built like a human brain.

So what? It's leagues ahead of the mis-informed position from which you assert without support.

Sorry, no evidence for a soul. You're still just repeating the same assertions without demonstrating the assertions are true. Just saying the same thing over and over again without presenting any evidence doesn't prove a thing except your ability to be repetitive.

Reading comprehension fail. It doesn't matter if it's a soul.

Offer a third option then. Either you make the same choice every time or you don't. What other option are you implying exists?

Thought so.

 

[Cephus]

You've not addressed it at all. Offer a third alternative or you are reversing burden of proof.

You haven't demonstrated that either of your supposed alternatives are accurate yet. Start there. Let me know when you manage it.

 

[JerryL]

You haven't demonstrated that either of your supposed alternatives are accurate yet. Start there. Let me know when you manage it.

Points for the ability to be non sequiter.

Me: Either I am wearing pants or I am not.
You: You haven't demonstrated that.

I sometimes wonder if it's smart people trolling or erst idiots. If you seriously believe what you've just said; seek mental help.