Carl Treetop

Well, I agree that free-will is an illusion, but I don’t think society *forces* us to believe in free will. Its just that it actually does seem like we do have free-will. And Determinism seems counter-intuitive. Our decisions generally affect our quality-of-life, and occasionally even our survival is at stake. There is no pretending about it. Our decisions have real consequences.

Nevertheless, we do *not* have free-will. In a nutshell, basically there are two types of determinants:
1) Biological (Internal influence): Genetic influences -- structure and proclivities, capabilities and limitations, systems of emotion, survival instinct.
2) Environmental (external influence): What we learn from birth on. Includes learning from our interactions with parents, peers, teachers, objects and the material world, books, media, etc.

These two realms interact and determine our beliefs and behavior. Notice that clearly no one has any say as to who their parents will be, or what kind of culture they will be born into. Our decisions as adults stem from these early basic determinants in long chains of cause and effect.

Bill, I agree that recognizing that free-will is an illusion can provide "insight and comfort." But you made an incompatible statement when you said: "Even though it's impossible to distinquish determinism and free will…" It is possible to distinquish a state of comfort from a state of discomfort, (especially to the person feeling it) so it is possible to distinquish difference between the two philosophies in practice.

Our courts of justice distinquish between criminal acts and the same acts committed due to insanity. The former are punishable, the latter generally are not. The former is considered to be done of free-will, the latter is considered to have a cause beyond the perpetrators control. Observers are less angry and more compassionate in the latter case.

With the realization that all acts are determined, there would be more compassion and less anger toward people in general. There would tend to be more tolerance and understanding toward anyone whose actions you personally do not like.

So the free-willer who comes to adequately understand the determinist philosophy, and who accepts it and practices it, is likely to experience changes in his/her emotional reaction to certain acts of others, for the better.

Let’s go to the core of the situation. What are our decisions based on at the deepest level?

Once our genetic structure and the culture into which we are born has been established, I submit that the next most influential determinant is our survival instinct. However, as the complex creatures that we are, most of our decisions are somewhat removed from *immediate* survival. Our decisions are most often weighed according to the pleasure/pain principle (which is an extension of the survival instinct). Every decision we make, no matter how minor or major, is based upon analysis leading to a choice that will hopefully result in attaining or enhancing pleasure/satisfaction, or avoiding or reducing pain. We generally use our storehouse of memories for the information upon which to decide, or we might do research. Our emotions and how we physically feel at a given time might influence our decisions also. It is all mechanistic, but wonderfully so. The homo Sapiens species is, after all, a product of the universe... and arguably, the most complex and capable product.

Just_An_Atheist

Firstly, I don't think that the matter is just "free will vs. determinism", because it would seem that that would exclude a third option, which is indeterminism. Indeterminism isn't the same thing as free will, because if an action has no cause then it wasn't caused by you. However, maybe free will is logically impossible, if determinism, in one of it's forms, were false. An action either is the result of a series of causes or there is an interreption of an acausal effect. Either way, all of our actions would either be determined, or random.

Bill B

Carl, your points are well taken and very well expressed. I appreciate and have learned from your insights.

And perhaps that same free-willer will become more inclined, based on increased tolerance and understanding, to make a more substantial effort to influence significantly and "positively" some of the environmental factors in the lives of others that help determine each of their actions and our own actions. The thought of that happening is very energizing. But it requires determinists to take the lead. There's a lot of work to be done.

johngalt

I agree with Philosoft. I do have free will, dammit. I just said dammit! Therefore i have free will!

Philosoft

No, silly. We want a fully deterministic world if we're going to blame the big guy who started everything.

abe smith

to me; because I have/have had, to live it, "by the seat of my pants", in any case, whether-or-not. No going-back to ask "what if?"; too busy avoiding being submerged by the upcoming.

mhc

THe question for me is:
How could we ever be frustrated in a deterministic reality?
What is it that" knows better"?

cobrashock

Hi guys. New to the site but I will be in and out more. To the point. How about this?
We are the result of a physics succession or chain. Our subject is a discussion based on "future" behaviors or events as I see it. The laws of physics indeed says there can be variable responses to identical preconditions based on quantum physics.
So free will is a choice that can be made by us in the future, as long as we exist in that physics and the choice options are, or can be optional.
The quantum physics are not fully understood, but we do have a fairly good concept of results of that physics. And those results are a fair representation in the above statement.
I also think most of the arguments above are centered on the abstraction we call language. Just because it can be discussed in language does not mean that its square with its reality. You can have a endless succession of logic loops in abstractions that may be fun to discuss but don't fit the reality. Besides, I too would like to blame it all on the big guy!!!

cobrashock, Ron Shockley

John Page

Greetings, cobra:

I think this is a hasty conclusion, I'm not signing up to the "identical preconditions" just yet! Quantum physics is based on experiment technology that doesn't allow us to observe what is going on. If reality does comprise indivisible quanta, what business have we to say what is happening within the "quantum environment".

Some folks more learned than I have made observations as to different interpretations of quantum experiment results, one of which involves backward chaining in time and the other speeds faster than light.

Arguably, even if backward chaining in time was shown to occur, this wouldn't affect the debate we're having. If we don't humanly "know" events at a different point in time we cannot be acting with foreknowledge.

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Why is it NOT a hasty conclusion, to assume randomness doesn't exist?

I am not convinced FTL has no meaning.

I AM convinced "backward chaining in time" has no meaning. "Time" is the fact that changes occur in matter. If matter "returns" to a pre-existing condition, it does so while "moving into the future"!

IOW neither the future nor the past exists, only the present moment.