Mat Wilder

That's Prolegomena.

Why can't we edit what we added when we edited previously? Arrgh!

cobrashock

Mat- I don't think anyone on this thread denys determinsm or free will of some sort in this thread. Given that, the real questions are about the degrees or limits of both subjects and its relationship to the individual or a group. In Carls case he defines a ethic from his own beliefs as it applys to determinism.
It could be subjective to the individual too. After all, if one is rich, you would have options that a poor person may not have. Then again you may be pre-ordained to be poor or rich! I'm so confused!
Cobrashock, (poor) Ron Shockley

John Page

Absurd is a relative notion. If you mean "A normal person would employ more brainpower prior to a physical action being determined." then I would conclude they have less free will, i.e. less choices.

Cheers, John

Carl Treetop

Hi Nowhere,

Your first three quotes are not my words, but those of Bill B. Not really a problem as Bill’s views and mine are similar. (The remaining quotes are of my words.)


We DO have "will" or volition by which we make decisions. However, our choices are controlled by forces which are not readily apparent - our choices are NOT "free."

Recap: We are born with certain genes into a certain culture, which together, shape who and what we are and how we think in our early years of life. Say up to age four, you might agree that our decisions are not of free will but are conditioned by our genes and by what our parents and culture have taught us at that young age. So when do we become able to make choices of "free will?" (I think we don’t at any age.)

At the core of our decisions is the survival instinct. This is inborn. You do not choose to survive. The fact that you are alive indicates that you have it. Without it you would not live. Born of the survival instinct is the pleasure/pain principle. Every decision is weighed according to this principle. As we grow and increase our knowledge, we become capable of weighing complex matters. And as we grow, the *illusion* of free will also grows. Ever say to yourself after making an incredible error, "How did I do that?" Or, "Why did I think that?" Our intellects are prone to error. (Enter science and systems of verification. ) Our decisions are influenced by whether we are alert or tired, drunk or sober, ill or healthy, in addition to our cultural programming and genetic proclivities.


Decisions are made by applying one’s will, although most decisions are so fast and automatic we hardly notice the "will." On difficult decisions we notice will or effort. In either case, the will is supplied by your survival instinct and the weighing is done according to the pleasure/pain principle. You do not decide what gives you pleasure or pain, your experience teaches you this.

Whenever we watch the decision process, we are uncertain and looking for ways to upgrade the knowledge that determines our decisions.


Survuval instinct provides the will. We have no say on that and we have no say on what the decisions are based upon. No separate "entity" is required.


Even with the realization that we do not have free will, we would still be responsible for our actions and morality would still exist. This is so because we want to survive, we want to avoid pain, and we want pleasure/satisfaction. We soon learn that other humans want the same thing. If we cause them trouble, they cause us trouble. So we learn to be considerate for our own good, as do they.


I have just addressed something of the nature of will. I am willing to go deeper if you like.


This requires effort against the body’s natural reaction to withdraw from raw immediate pain. This is usually done in hope of gaining some greater benefit such as coveted membership in a particular group. People do not do this kind of thing for no reason. In other words, it is enduring pain in hope of a gaining greater pleasure/security/satisfaction. The reasons and forces bringing one to such an act would far precede the act.


Okay. Subjectively, our choices often *seem* free.


Here is where it gets trickier. (Again, there is will which is a part of everyone’s makeup.) Everyone’s behavior and decisions are predetermined. But what happens to each individual due to outside forces is another matter. IE: Suppose a particular person is a good driver, but gets hit by a careless driver and injured. No way to know that this would happen to that individual and it does not seem feasible that such a thing could be predetermined. It seems this is where randomness comes into play. However, what *is* predetermined, is how that individual will react to this new situation.

Carl Treetop

The 5 quotes at the end of my post of May 3rd are by Einstein. The third of those quotes might seem to contradict the fact that Uncle Albert was a Determinist.


Science has especially freed us considerably from the drudgery of centuries ago, and enabled people in general to gain knowledge and widen our horizons of possiblities. Our possible choices are expanded but all the factors that combine and build to make us who we are, still determine our choices.

John Page

Apologies for my lack of clarity here - I am suggesting a normal person would have more choice (the they was meant to refer to the brain damaged example provided by T.E. Lords.

Cheers, John

John Page

Carl, I think there may some Red Herrings here.

1. Predetermined can be taken to be predetermined by something or someone. Predetermination is only in reference to laws/rules that we use to explain why stuff happens. As far as I know there is no "predetermining agent".
2. If everything is predetermined then nothing can be totally random, irrespective of anyone's knowledge. If you are stating just how things appear to the driver, then I have no beef. The event could appear random/non-predetermined to them.

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Yikes, I should really stop posting at 3am. Sorry.

Once again, I have no real problem with any of the points in your post. But I find your conclusion wrong. This makes me think we have differing definitions.

Yes. And objectively our choices "seem" predetermined.

RE the candle and the hand:
I find this experiment compelling. Your explanation is lacking, I believe, and I think I see where we diverge.

The "reason" is to experience the existence of will! When we make a mental effort to make a difficult choice, we are applying will. This is how I (loosely) define will. When the brain reaches decisions without our mental attendance, no will was used.

You seem to imply that randomness cannot be involved in the application of will. Why?

Thanks for the good post.

JGL53

Where is it stated in the Big Book of Truth (TM) that evolved conscious entities who have the capacity of exercising free will (choice), e.g., humans, can not exist as part of an utterly deterministic universe? I must have missed that class in formal logic school.

I chose to eat pizza and ice cream for dinner tonight instead of liver and spinach. No other being with a will exerted any countermanding influence on this choice of mine (I'm an atheist), so it was certainly 'free' in that sense. And so whence my will? It came from a combination up to that point in time of my genetics and environment, including cultural influences.

It certainly SEEMED at the time that the choice came to me out of thin air or, rather, was created by me out of nothingness, but all effects have causes, some VERY complicated causes. It SEEMED like an etheral 'me', something like a 'soul', that had no connection to physical reality, made the choice. But haven't recent findings in cognative science begun to show that the production of such an illusion is just how a (very real) bag of chemicals called the brain works?

Lastly, could it have been otherwise? How? No. If so, prove it - the burden is on those that say it could have. Determinism is the default position here, analogous to materialism being the default position to idealism, i.e., both the mysticism of idealism and what most mean by 'free will' would need to be proven the better theories, since proof of mystic entities is required - otherwise, Occam's Razor slices and dices.

Nowhere357

I think no one said that. I know I didn't. Do you differentiate between an "utterly deterministic" universe, and a plain old "deterministic" universe?

Your "BBoT(TM)" sounds like the bible. Are you refering to the bible in a sarcastic way, or trying to make some other point?

The will comes from the brain/body/environment, yes.

Don't you recall making a mental effort to make your choice? It's not like we're watching tv, it's more like we're changing channels. When we apply our will, we use it, we perform a mental action. The will is not passive.

All effects have causes. In this case, the cause is the brain. The effect is, at a minimum, two things: the brain can pe passively aware (a subjective mental awareness), and the brain can actively apply will, the ability to make decisions.

Incorrect. The "etheral me" is the brain's subjective mental awareness. This subjective existence is definitely connected to physical reality. It deterministically emerges from the brain, and through the application of it's inherent quality of will, deterministically causes effects TO the brain.

Yes. Although "illusion" is a loaded word in this context. Aren't rocks over 99% "empty" space, which is a pretty good definition for "illusion"?

Given that your assumption that the agency which provides will is not connected to the brain, is in error, this question is unclear.

I agree objective determinism seems like the default position.
I think I agree with the second part also, if you mean something like "an idea/concept has no material existence", except perhaps as a pattern of matter/energy in space/time.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "mysticism of idealism". But the existence of will is not in doubt - you admitted you chose your breakfast. To then claim that this ability is a non-default position, a "mystic entity", is begging the question - you have defined the term in a way that pre-supposes your conclusion.

We all have direct experience of the quality of will. I would say that the default position is that we can make decisions and affect ourselves and our world. The burden of proof is on those who deny this.

Now you be careful with that thing. It's not a toy.


Free will is alive and well!