Keith Russell

Greetings:

An individual may not always make the same choice, even in the same situation. We can learn from past events (environment and experience), yet we don't even always act on the knowledge we've learned.

Sometimes, we choose to make the same mistakes over and over again...

Keith.

Thomas Ash

Hey- that's not what compatibilist determinism is.

( )

Compatibilist determinism is the idea that determinism is true, our choices all have choices and are in that sense determined. But this is perfectly compatible with free will, under compatibilist determinism, because it's still

PS: I think Starboy's definition allows for "free" choice, as in unpredictable choice, kind of like "freestyle" in swimming, but not a really metaphysically free choice, as it's not your choice to do what's randomly decided by the physical laws of the universe. Like Theli has been saying, a random choice isn't a free choice.you that's making the choice, just for reasons. If Cyril decides to go for bacon because a) he likes bacon and b) he sees bacon to the left, and he necessarily makes that choice because of the laws of the universe, that's still Cyril who's making the choice! So we still have free will, just not in the dualist sense theists tend to want.

Theli

Starboy...
Didn't you just make a point to point reply yourself just now?
Would you rather have me ignoring big portions of your post?
Anyway...

Once again, how can a choice be independent of the person making it?
You seem to be forgetting the "choice" part of free choice.
If a choice that you say is made by person A but not person B, is independent of them both, how can you be so sure it was a choice made by person A?
Just as you said here:
You see?
This is why I have to use point-by-point replies. You have here introduced a red herring. In the first post on this thread, it was stated that the discussion at hand would assume that determinism was true and then decide weither determinism is incompatible with free will.
It won't get us very far by just stating our conclutions over and over again.
About logic and assumptions. You said in the text above that logic conclutions are equal to assumptions. You might be suprised to learn that even assumptions carry some logic in it.
And also the more insane aspect of your claim is that the universe would be completely random. If a conclution was equal to a random guess, then there would be no mathematics, we would not even be able to walk as there would be no reason to assume that the ground we're standing on would keep existing.
Why would we be able to observe our world, when the info recieved can give us no advantage.
Do you have a drivinglicence, Starboy?
It would seem strange if you did, because when you see a left turn there would be a 50& chance for you to turn left, and a 50% chance for you to turn right.
Actually, there would be less than that counting all the other actions you might take.
Throwing yourself out of the car or screaming and going straight farward. And how would you get into the car? You would have atleast 4 seats to choose from. But how would you get to the car, it could just aswell be a bird. But how do you know what a bird looks like? Need I continue?

How did you write this post? Did you just guess that you were sitting at a computer? Did you assume that is was turned on? Did you just hammer the keyboard you guessed was there, randomly until you happened to enter this site?
How did you work the mouse? Surelly you couldn't let the position of the icons, the resolution of your screen and your mousespeed guide your free movement of your hand.
It's not a bad guess. I would say,

Alot of things are predictable, weither we live in a deterministic universe or not.
An undeterministic universe would not make our choice more free, it would only limit our ability to predict it's outcome.

Reliable assumptions.

Say what?
If an assumption is viod of logic, as you suggests then it would have to be either random or based entirely on a persons desire (wich is impossible).
Whould you rely on a random answer?


Science and assumptions.

I would like to meet the scientist that bases all his knowledge on assumptions, and has not even have a logical thought.
Scientists uses logic to determine the meaning of discoveries, to connect it with other discoveries.
The assumption that you speak of is info acquired from outside sources.

About random choice.
Try for instance to think of a string of ones and zeros. You can notice this by just counting up "random" numbers in your mind, that you must think every now and then. The numbers easilly end up forming patterns. Like: 001001001001001001
You must choose when you break the pattern.

Determinism and machines

My excact claim was that determinism does not make us machines. Weither you refers to us as machines is up to you. Determinism doesn't change it.

This is completely irrelavent. The validity of determinsim isn't in question here.

I don't know if I can answer this, as the term "free will" is very brurry. But I would say that the process of making a choice is not limited to the person we generally say makes the choice.
If we point out 2 outcomes and let the coin 'decide' between the both, then we make a choice that depends on a future condition.
Like saying: I'll go to bed at 22:00. Where the choice is made to review a second choice (possibly leading to an action) when a certain external condition is fullfilled.
When the condition has been fullfilled (at 22:00), the second choice is reviewed and compared to other unpredicted factors. I might not be tired at 22:00, a factor I did not predict when making the first choice.
There are ofcourse many other factors, as even a simple choice that is actually very complex.
When it comes to the coin, I can indeed disagree with it's outcome. Perhaps the decision attached to it's outcome is very unapealing. And so I override the authority I temporarilly gave to the coin.

The best definition of "free will" I can give for now is the freedom to make a choice that follows the desire of the own mind. This would also include the ability to perform an action attached to the choice. But we can never be 100% free. Our bodies does have limits that even constrain our choices.
I think a part of "free will" involves the inability to forsee every action. We must be aware to deal with the situation as it present itself to us. I think it's important to remember that even if determinism would be true (wich I doubt) it doesn't follow that we are able to forsee every single event.

No, the opposite.
If the last process of the choice (logic) is made inside your brain, then the choice is yours. There are ofcourse situations when several people can be 'authors' of a single choice. We usually don't include nonliving things as 'authors' of a choice, even if they are included in the process. The fact of the matter is that the world around us is very much a part of us, and it's difficult sometimes to draw the line where it ends and we begin.
If free will comes down to authorship of a choice then it's indeed fussy.
Even in the coin example, you still have the last word. As you can override it's authority, and the coin can't take it back.

The crux here is that if chance exists, then the machine could have a random generation just as you. Would that give the machine free will also?

This is a good example. The choice (smoking) was set by the desire to smoke, and that desire was created by prior choices (start smoking). Choices creates desires, just as desires creates choices.
Generally speaking, most people would consider this as not being a free choice. But that observation is simply based on the smoker's deviation from the standard, wich is not smoking.
If poeple that never eats would meet a person that does eat, they would probably consider his actions just as we see the smoker's. Starting to act irrational as soon as he gets hungry, one could think that he was possesed.

Then I'm a slave to the TV. If we were all smokers, he would not call himself a slave anymore.


Thanks for replying, I hope it's not too long.

Theli

"Same situation" should be taken with a pinch of salt. There's an extreme amount of conditions that would have to be the same for two people to make the excact same choice (caused by determinism). They would practicly be the same person, at the same age and with the same memory.
Not to mention all the external conditions.
It's also a flaw of humans to be stubborn, never learn from our mistakes as we have taken a course of actions for granted as being the correct one.

666 posts... how handy.


[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Starboy

Hi Thomas:

I agree, the commonly understood meaning of "free choice" is to choose as one wills. Lets call this type of free choice FC1. However, you can also conceive of "free choice" as exercising the freest choice of all, a choice with no influences (including yourself). If the current understanding of the universe is correct it is possible for this kind of "free" choice to exist. Lets call it FC2. Many here object to FC2 because they argue that it does not actually take place in the deciding person’s mind and thus doesn’t belong to them (their choice). I find this notion to be somewhat vague. What constitutes a decision you make verses one made by someone or something else? If the "random" coin was built into your mind vs. one that you carried around with you, would that make a difference as to whether "you" made the decision or the coin did. I see it as a very fine distinction since you are the one who is tasked with making the decision, if you used other aids such as paper and pencil or your finger and a stretch of smooth sand I don't think anyone would question the ownership of the decision. IMO the decision was made because of a "will" that belonged to you, so no matter how it was made as long as it was your "will" that came up with it, it is yours. The ability to use a coin in such a decision simply allows it to be completely "free".

This does point out the difficulty in determining what is "yours" and what is not. It is a vague concept when you think about. You did not make yourself so is anything you do or have yours? Yet we all intuitively have a concept of me and mine. Perhaps this is the crux of the difficulty in completely dissecting the idea of "free will". What you think belongs to you may be nothing more than social convention. If that is the case then maybe FC2 is the more realistic concept since it is more about freedom of choice than about who owns it.

Starboy

xeren

Well, I never gave the definition of compatibilist free will, i gave an instance of it, and i think my instance is compatible with the compatibilist free will .

Given the fork in the road example, the person is only going to pick one route because of determinism, but the fact that he COULD HAVE chosen another makes it still free will under the compatibilist definition.

-xeren

Theli

--Post deleted by aliens--

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Starboy

Theli,

I am busted. I have no interest in discussing if free will could exist in a universe with “classical” determinism. I think it is far more interesting to dissect the whole concept of free will into its basic parts and to see if it could exist in a universe with quantum determinism. If you have no interested in doing this then I thank you for your thought provoking posts. Or we could go on to a different topic.

As noted in the response I made to Thomas, it appears that there are several components to this whole problem:

1) What does it mean for a decision to be yours? (The whole concept of possession, me and mine) You did not make yourself. How does that affect the ownership of will, decision and choice? Or is this just a matter of social convention, if so what are the accepted conventions or should the concept of ownership be refined further? Or ignored completely?
2) What is will? Is “will” reason or a drive to choose when presented with a choice?
3) How do you know your will is yours? Do the results of a will no matter what else was involved belong to the will? Does Star Wars belong Lucas because it was the result of his will? (Ignore the legal issues)
4) What is choice? If there is no will is there any choice? Does reason have to be involved with choice? What must be involved in order for the choice to belong to you? Can a vegetable make a choice? How about a bacterium? A brain dead person? A rock?
5) What is allowed in the process of deciding? Can external things be used such as paper and pencil, or a coin, or a consultant? If they are used does this dilute the ownership of the decision? Of the choice?
6) What constitutes “free”? Does free apply only to choice, will or both? How can you tell if a choice or a will is free? Is there a test for it?

I could come up with more questions but this should keep us, and anyone else who cares to join, busy for a good while. In regards to your last post:

I do not advocate using a coin to make day-to-day choices. I present the ability to make choices with a “random” coin as evidence of the existence of “free” will, where it is “free” in the broadest sense possible.

As to the effect of determinism on “free choice” again I say to you what I have said before. There can be many types of determinism besides “classical” determinism. The type that is thought to operate in the universe we live in just so happens be “quantum’ determinism. This type of determinism is interesting because in some instances at the smallest scales the exact outcome state of the previous cause cannot in principle or practice be predicted. What this means is that a machine can be constructed to make a choice such that no one could ever know what will be chosen until it is chosen. This allows the construction of a guaranteed 100% “free” chooser. So the type of determinism does have an impact on the discussion since “free” is part of the question.

The core of the disagreement we appear to be having seems to be the result of the meaning and use of the word determinism. Correct me if I am wrong but I get the impression that in your opinion determinism means for every effect there is a cause. In order for something to be non-deterministic there would have to be an effect that had no link to any cause. So correct me if I am wrong, but even though the outcome of a toss of the coin cannot be predicted you think it is deterministic because it cannot be heads or tails unless it is tossed. I agree it could not be heads or tails without the flip but it ending up as a head specifically or a tails specifically has nothing to do with the flip. This may be a fine point but from a quantum mechanical point of view the flip resulted in a quantum state of .5 heads + .5 tails. It isn’t until it is localized that it becomes heads or tails. This may be the effect with no cause. Even so cause and effect may be an illusion, the true test of determinism is predictability. If it can’t be predicted how do you know it was caused? This concept is the root of the multiple universe idea, which is a way of reconciling the disconnect between cause and effect and the causality as understood by GR and EM.

In regards to the difference between assumptions and logic and their effects on the validity of conclusions, this is beginner’s stuff. Please consult any book on logic. Logic is important but it is not sufficient. There is an old saying: Garbage in, Garbage out. What it means is that using bad assumptions with perfect logic ends up with bad conclusions. Scientists are well known for working hard to gather accurate knowledge, this is not something normally attributed to philosophers. Thus when you are getting ready to turn the cranks of logic, scientific knowledge is usually a good place to get your assumptions.

As to the question: Would installing a random number generator in a machine give it “free” will? Perhaps not but I do not know if a machine can have a will, but after the retrofit it would be able to have “free” choice, where “free” would mean unrestrained.

As to your very last point where if everyone smoked no one would be addicted. I am sure you realize that is just plain silly. Addiction is a physiological response and has nothing to do with social convention.

Starboy

Theli

Starboy...

The way I see it the difference is neglectable.
I don't intend to end this discussion right now, kind of a brainbuster.

Diving into the numbers...

1. I would say that the decision part of the process that leads to a choice can be summed up in the one person (or people) that makes the last judgement. As events and conditions prior to that should be refered to as causes. I think we can safelly limit the decision to the brain. As both desires and prior causes has their own categories.
2. "Will" for me is simply desire. The thing that sets the goal for the decisionprocess.
3. Here's the fussy (and long) part of the argument. The will/desire can be set by prior choices/actions, and it can simultainesly be set by outside causes. The "free will" term seems impossible to decipher, as it doesn't make sense. The only way I can make it fit, is to limit it to needs of the body/brain. If the will does not follow the need of the body or the brain, it is not free. I would think that "free choice" would be a better alias though. Saying the choice must be a process ending with he who has the desire/will. If a coin is flipped at the end, the person could only choose the 2 outcomes of his own free will, the rest is up to coin. And that outcome can not be seen as one of free will.
4. Without will there is no choice Hmmm... I would rather say: without goal there is no choice. And the goal is set by the will/desire. I might have to sleep on this, but I think all goals require will from the individual. Reason must definatly be involved in the choice. You cannot 'choose' one or the other without knowledge (as you must know what you are choosing between), and reason follows knowledge. Unless it's instinctive, where there's no choice at all. A vegetable cannot make a choice, it simply follows growth coded in it's genes. I don't know about a bacteria's capabilities, and I have no idea about braindead people. But I would guess no on those.
5. About external things, external things as paper is only used to help the memory and do not effect the logic. About consultants, they would share authorship of the choice, depending on how much they helped.
6. My answer to this was stated in 3.

About a free will with a coin. The crux here is that if a coin would increase the freedom of a choice, then a dice would do even more. As it "chooses" from more alternatives. And a 0-100 random generator could do even more. We could also include random generators to decide the alternatives for the last RG. That would in the same sense increase the "freedom".
As we progress we will eventually run out of set causes and situations to choose from. And what would we then choose? What is left to choose between when we don't have any knowledge to provide alternatives, and we don't have any situation to apply the choice anymore?
If the free-est choice is one lacking conditions and alternatives then would it mean that constraints is a crucial part for a 'choice' to even have outcomes?
I would think that the better argument would be that when we flip the coin we are lending authority to it, wich would infact decrease our own.

And as I said before, I'm not sold on the strict determinism where there is no chance at all. The reason I started this thread was that I oppose the popular claim that strict determinism would somehow rob us of our free will. Although, now the topic has progressed from that.
As I see it, your idea of "free" impy, or even require undetermined/uncaused. As the choice must be "created" in the mind of the person that makes it.
You could think of it as a factory, where prior causes is the raw-material and the brain is the factory itself. The will/desire is the demand, and the action/choice is the finished product. Now, the freedom you describe is for the factory be able to stray from the demand or ignore it alltogether. But the problem here is that the straying would have to be deliberate, or it would only be regarded as a flaw in the production. And I don't see an uncaused random factor to be deliberate. This analogy might be horseshit, it's 01:00 and I'm pretty tired.

The computer needs set alternatives for the random generator to "choose from".Then it's not 100% free. And if you are refering to only the actual RND choice, then there seems to lack a logic process. If logic process isn't required for a choice to be made, we could just aswell say that a rock chooses to fall to the ground, and then chooses to lie still.

About the flipped coin, do you claim that noone can calculate the number of spins it will make in mid air based on the toss's height and the coins rotatingspeed?
As a matter of fact, this is possible. I even have a plugin to 3D studio that can simulate a cointoss, including power, weight, friction and such conditions. And the coin (or whatever object I use) always ends up excacly the same. They use more advanced simulators in movie industries and in scientific studies. And computers cannot generate actual random numbers.
Acording to the type of determinism you are describing these would be inaccurate. If I haven't missunderstood completely.

If it can’t be predicted how do you know it was caused?

This is a good question. An unpredicted event could very well be interpreted as random.

I would rather say false information than bad assumptions. As an assumption is practicly just a conclusion with low certainty.

No, philosophers tends to fly around in the sky trying to catch clouds and shadows. Not as concrete as science.

Don't you mean place my trust, or place to obtain information? There seems to be a slight word shift here. What does the word "assumption" mean to you?

I never said that. I never said that noone would be addicted. As I stated before, many needs are based on prior actions. And addiction to cigarettes is one of them.
I don't see how this would be less free than the need to sleep. If free will hasn't become a health issue that is.
BTW, why did you include social convention? Smoking can (and has) very well fall under the term social convention. If everyone smoked it would definitely do so.

Another scroller away!

tronvillain

Well, I have missed a large part of the discussion, but I will attempt the questions anyway:

1) What does it mean for a decision to be mine? A decision is mine if I make it - I take in information, process it, and produce an action. Simple.

2) What is will? I am not even sure it is a useful term, but would probalby identify it as the drive to make choices, the union of reason and motivation.

3) How do I know my will is mine? It is the simplest explanation. It is possible that I am somehow under the control of someone else, but there is no evidence for it. Do the results of a will belong to the will no matter what else was involved? This question appears unrelated to the issue at hand.

4) What is choice? It is selecting one of two or more options identified. If there is no will, there is no choice, so obviously reason must be involved. Neither a vegetable nor a rock can make a choice, but a dog or an ape probably can.

5) What is allowed in the process of deciding? What an odd question. There are no rules inherent to making a choice, though one method may be more effective than another.

6) What constitutes “free”? Does free apply only to choice, will or both? How can you tell if a choice or a will is free? Is there a test for it?

Freedom is basically lack of constraint, and applies to both choice and will. How can you tell if a choice is free? There is nothing external forcing the choice. How can you tell if a will is free? A intact will is always free, though whether it can be excercised depends on whether there is free choice.