Free Will / Determinism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Free Will / Determinism » Free Will / Determinism

Free Will / Determinism
How can Free Will exist?

Page: 1 2 3

Free Will / Determinism

Zukros
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/29/09 - 02:41 PM:

#11

Arkady: not exactly what it turned into as actual text, but that was the general idea as it was absorbed into that grey matter I like to call a brain.

Advinar: exactly.

Advinar: a couple points I have.

You view your experiences as determining your character. What if it is completely the opposite? What if I give meaning to my experiences and therefore it is not without outside influence?

Secondly, why do you think free will has to be free of outside influence?

Third, you say you don't get to choose your experiences. Not until there is actually a "you" to choose anything. If who 'you' are is created by your formative experiences, then I would say that free will can't exist at all without that condition. It is also illogical to conclude that determinism strips me of responsibility for my actions (the reasoning being that since I can't control them I am not responsible for what they make me do). The fact that my actions have consequences and that I have to live with the reality of those consequences is my responsibility.

"I" is a letter I have difficulties with. If "you" gives meaning to your experiences, then something must affect the "you" which decides this; namely, biological factors and past interpretaions of experiences; therefore, there is no "you" which decides this, just a bundle of cells programmed to think in this. Interpreting and surmising from evidence only means biological factors must be brought into account, not that there is a self-conscious 'person' who is doing the surmising. (If I read what you were saying correctly? It's late, and I'm tired, so sorry if not.)

If free will cannot exist without formative experiences, then I would regard it more as probability, not free will as such: if you are shaped by your experiences, all it shows is your mind extrapolating from past behaviour, not necessarily you thinking but more your brain doing as it is programmed to do, and is good at doing after millennia of natural selection. As for consequences, that must be accepted, because any other line of thought leads to immense difficulties as far as teh legal system works: and, for that matter, your perception of the being you regard as yourself.

An interesting point is also that self-conscious humans may not always have existed: the concept of autonomy must have started at some point (unless you can prove that bacteria are autonomous), indicating that it evolved out of a need to survive and taht it is just another mechanism for helping an effective society (remember that humans always used to work in groups, and would have survived longer as such), in the same way as a leopard is adapted for hunting prey.

One standard answer is that we are free when we do what we want. Sometimes we do what we want. It can also be true that what we want and what we do is due to a long train of cause and effect. So it can be true both that we are free and that we are causally determined.

On the contrary, honest scientists will tell you how difficult it is to find causes of many things. If it were not, there would be no need for science, because we would already know the causes of everything.

I don't think that scientists will be able to tell you whether everything has a cause or whether there are some events that lack a cause. To do that they would have to enumerate the cause of every event (which is a colossal and therefore impossible task) or they would have to show in the case of some event that no other event was its cause (likewise colossal and impossible). 'Every event has a cause' isn't a proposition that's susceptible to scientific investigation. It's an assumption that is useful to prevent scientific incuriosity and laziness.

I don't see how that works. If what we want is 'casually determined', then how is there any 'freedom'? Or are you suggesting that there is a probability of actions which we then have a degree of control over?

true; I am not mentioning that as saying I have asked my parents on the subject, but more from the ipressionable point of view of a child used to long and logical answers to such questiosn as 'why is the sky blue?' etc., which indicates to a child that there are causes (or at leats answers) for most things, a viewpoint that has stayed with me as I grow up.

Of course listing the cause for evrything would be long and ultimately unsuccessful. But if an 90% of a result is determined by a selection of factors, say, looking at various pieces of evidence, then it can be assumed that there are a variety of causes. And if it can be done for all examples chosen, it suggests a strong correlation between an event and causes that indicates events without causes are non-existant or unlikely. However, as you say, to do this for every event would be nigh impossible.

Klas Wullt: an interesting point of view. While I may disagree with 'there is nothing to worry about' (because, of course, worrying may mean there are ultimately less things to worry about due to an instinct to combat the worrying), the rest of it makes sense and I agree with. However, sometimes I think it is better if humanity remains believing in free will and not being nihilistic because, I have to admit, it would be a strange world if everyone believed in determinism, and not necessarily for teh better.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/29/09 - 09:32 PM:	#12
Zukros wrote: Okay. I'm new to philosophy as a whole, so don't come down on me too harshly. Welcome to PF, Zukros! Hope you have an enjoyable and useful time here. Zukros wrote: However, lately I have been wondering increasingly how the concept of Free Will can be sustained without belief in the Supernatural. As someone growing up in a family of scientists, it is all too easy to look around and find a cause for everything - every thought, belief or ideal can be ultimately attributed to genetic or environmental factors. As we research more and more into the way the brain works, it becomes painfully obvious that the way we think and act is not due to some inner 'soul' or free will, but as a result of determinism and prior factors affecting our decisions. And if this is the case - and I cannot find any proof that this is not the case - then how can Free Will exist? If everything is ultimately due to a long train of consequences and chances (or not as such, if we take the theory of parallel universes as fact), then what 'freedom' do we have? Agreed 100%. But we have to be very careful how we define this “free will” that you refer to. A compatibilist (like me) sees no conflict or incompatibility between determinism and their definition of free will (which is simply “being able to do what I want to do”). When most people talk of free will, however, they usually refer to a metaphysical libertarian type of free will, one in which we are somehow “unmoved movers” or “uncaused causes” of our willed decisions. This is the type of free will that I believe you are referring to, the one which is incompatible with determinism and (unfortunately) the one that is ultimately incoherent. Belgarath wrote: how you see a connection between "free will" and the "supernatural." I do not see any connection between the two that is truly significant. Here is the connection: To have free will in the metaphysical libertarian sense one must claim to be ultimately responsible for one’s actions. But to be ultimately responsible for what I do, I must also be ultimately responsible for the way that I am (because, in absence of mere caprice, the way that I am determines what I do). But to be responsible for the way that I am, I must have intentionally brought it about that I am the way that I am. But to intentionally bring about a state N, one must have had a prior state N-1 which led to the intentional development of state N. But to intentionally bring about state N-1, one must have had a prior state N-2 which led to the intentional development of state N-1. And so on ad infinitum. The only escape from this infinite regress is either (a) our chain of intentional states is somewhere grounded in a deterministic cause outside of our control or (b) our chain of intentional states is somewhere grounded in a random cause outside of our control or (c) a combination of (a) and (b) or (d) magic. Which “escape“ would you like to choose? Hence the connection between free will and the supernatural. Belgarath wrote: free will is the ability to choose your own destiny, to make your own decisions. Not someone else doing it, no divine being, or parallel hive-mind thing going on. It is you who decides. Zukros wrote: I'd define Free Will as there being a 'you' that has a choice in your own decisions and able to carve your own path in life. I'm arguing that there being reasons for every decision that could ahve led to it, genetic as well as environmental, there is no evidence for any 'you', let alone a freedom of choice. There is indeed a “you” that makes decisions, in the same way as there is a computer on my desk that outputs data. I agree with Belgarath’s description of free will (I choose, I make my own decisions, nobody else makes my decisions for me, it is me who decides), but all of this is completely compatible with determinism. I choose what I want to do, but that choice is not somehow magical, it is predetermined by a chain of cause and effect which stretches back beyond my birth but a chain which passes through me – hence I am part of that chain – hence I am part of the decision-making process. Logically, IF I did not do what I do, THEN the future would be different. The future, my future, is only what it is because I am part of the factors which determines that future. All completely deterministic, yes, but the only kind of free will that makes any coherent sense and avoids magic or infinite regress. Cuthbert wrote: One standard answer is that we are free when we do what we want. Sometimes we do what we want. It can also be true that what we want and what we do is due to a long train of cause and effect. So it can be true both that we are free and that we are causally determined. This is indeed the compatibilist view of freedom. It works. Cuthbert wrote: I don't think that scientists will be able to tell you whether everything has a cause or whether there are some events that lack a cause. To do that they would have to enumerate the cause of every event (which is a colossal and therefore impossible task) or they would have to show in the case of some event that no other event was its cause (likewise colossal and impossible). 'Every event has a cause' isn't a proposition that's susceptible to scientific investigation. It's an assumption that is useful to prevent scientific incuriosity and laziness. “Every event has a cause” is not even a scientific hypothesis, it’s a metaphysical statement, because it cannot be tested. Certain nucleii are unstable and undergo what is commonly referred to as "radioactive decay" - but science is unable to find any prior event which could be identified as the "cause" of this radioactive decay. All of the evidence points to such nuclear decay processes being purely probabilistic in nature - there is a certain probability that any given radioactive nucleus will decay within a given time period - and that's all there is to it. A good candidate, if you ask me, for an event without a cause. BUT science cannot “prove” that there is no cause – how does one go about proving the absence of something? Thus the question (whether every event has a cause or not) must ultimately go unanswered. Zukros wrote: there is no "you" which decides this, just a bundle of cells programmed to think in this. That is how I define “me”. You seem to be saying that “I” does not exist. I am saying that “I” exists, but there is nothing magical or supernatural about “I”, “I” is just a logical centre of narrative gravity within me to which “my” experiences are referred. All compatible with determinism. Zukros wrote: I don't see how that works. If what we want is 'casually determined', then how is there any 'freedom'? Or are you suggesting that there is a probability of actions which we then have a degree of control over? Cuthbert is using a different definition of freedom – the compatibilist definition (I am free if I am able to do what I want) – which is the only definition compatible with determinism. You seem to assume the metaphysical libertarian definition of freedom (I am an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover), which is incompatible with determinism (and is also incoherent). Zukros wrote: However, sometimes I think it is better if humanity remains believing in free will and not being nihilistic because, I have to admit, it would be a strange world if everyone believed in determinism, and not necessarily for teh better. If everyone “believed in determinism”, and truly understood it, then there would be no problem. In what way would the world be different if everyone believed in determinism and rejected the supernatural explanation of free will? In what way would anyone behave any differently to the way that they behave now, and why?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 125

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/29/09 - 11:15 PM:	#13
Hi, Zukros I think scientists are a very long way away from determining how every thought, belief or idea of yours or mine is brought about by inherent biological factors and their interaction with the environment, and I'm not sure they ever will get there. The determinist view in my opinion, seems to hold that your mind / brain is really little more then some highly sophisticated organic computer controlling a body which in turn is interacting with the environment, and that if every aspect of that computer could be understood, memories, feelings etc, and it could be linked up with a knowledge of every single aspect of the environment with which you interact, then your behaviours, your choices and beliefs could be determined. Could this be true? I don't know. But what I do know is that when I look at the computer sitting on my desk I realise its lacking an aweful lot compared to my biological one. For a start if I don't touch any keys it does precisely nothing, certain background functions, I assume the equivalent of your breathing and blinking, carry on, but it doesn't really start doing anything more then that. Meanwhile I sit at my desk lost in thought, not necessarily good ones, my imagination runs riot, something computers don't seem to have, and I think about all sorts of weird and wonderful things. We humans do a lot of internal processing that computers simply don't, and I have a feeling that it could be argued that based on that internal processing, we shape at least in part our ideas, beliefs, and feelings, and in turn create at least in part, our own choices and actions. Further, computers, at least those we currently know, are extremely limited in other ways, there are some that I've seen on the telly being taught to learn and adapt, in a rudimentary way, but I've never seen one that can be creative, i.e. come up with a new idea or aesthetic. I've never seen one that could develop a belief, a faith if you will, in a creator, and whether you accept or reject the concept, the fact that some people can theorise about an entity they can never see or experience and then spend an enormous amount of effort defending or opposing the notion, building churches or burning them down, going to war over them, is a distinctly human, distinctly individual characteristic that I do not see my computer ever achieving. Nor do I see computers being illogical, unless they're broken, while humans seem to have this ability in spades. As for randomness, get a dice, make six different actions that you want to do or don't want to do, assign them to each number a bit like multichoice, close your eyes and throw it around the room. Then do, or don't do what it says. It may perhaps in theory be possible if you knew everything about your own biology, the physical nature of the environment including micro air currents and the bouncyness of the walls and floors, the characteristics of the dice, and the mental processing going through your mind to determine which way the dice would land, but not I suspect by all the scientists and all their computers and measuring devices put together at this stage in our advancement. Maybe in a century - who knows. But also consider this, even if the universe is completely deterministic, from the galactic to the sub atomic scale, the incredible complexity of it means that you can still have the illusion of free will, and its a damned good one. Cheers.

treemanshope
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 268

Posted 10/30/09 - 05:20 AM:	#14
It seems we must have some degree of autonomy in order for freewill to be considered. You would have to recognize true ontological unities in evolution. You must consider that the coherence of the organism would have to play a role in its evolution. In other words an organism must already express a tendency for something in order to give natural selection something to work with.
The words of peace are just words, it is man that gives them flesh. Bring peace into the material world. Or, bring something else. treemanshope.

Kant Chocula
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009
Location: North East Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:32 AM:	#15
Odin wrote: Advinar: a couple points I have. You view your experiences as determining your character. What if it is completely the opposite? What if I give meaning to my experiences and therefore it is not without outside influence? Secondly, why do you think free will has to be free of outside influence? Third, you say you don't get to choose your experiences. Not until there is actually a "you" to choose anything. If who 'you' are is created by your formative experiences, then I would say that free will can't exist at all without that condition. It is also illogical to conclude that determinism strips me of responsibility for my actions (the reasoning being that since I can't control them I am not responsible for what they make me do). The fact that my actions have consequences and that I have to live with the reality of those consequences is my responsibility. Holy Sartre Batman! I don't know why, but as I grow older I am finding myself more in line with Sartrean existentialism. I find it odd because most people I know in philosophy always tell me they grew out of Sartre. Anyway, that would have been my contribution had you not already stolen my thunder.
A categorically delicious part of your noumenal breakfast.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/30/09 - 07:45 AM:	#16
treemanshope wrote: In other words an organism must already express a tendency for something in order to give natural selection something to work with. Is this view incompatible with determinism, and if so, why?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

treemanshope
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 268

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:03 PM:	#17
reincarnated wrote: Is this view incompatible with determinism, and if so, why? No, but how is it compatible? The structural functioning of the nervous system determines perception, But, is not clearly defined. The nervous system is a closed system to the extent that what enters from the senses or medium is not the main phenomena of perception, perception mainly has to do with the overall pattern of the brain. Light falling on the retina is only a small perturbation to the ongoing internal buzzing of the brain. The problem with determinism is that order at any given moment is truly disturbed by disorder. An event is a true eruption a catastrophy and a restructuring of the system. The system can change its structure through random perturbations and still maintain its organization, but in a different way, with more or less complexity. Culture and unconscious principles of ordering can change in generation through literacy and electronic information and pictures. Some systems of ordering I'm sure are more firmly established and would change more slowly.
The words of peace are just words, it is man that gives them flesh. Bring peace into the material world. Or, bring something else. treemanshope.

mutemaler
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 664

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:51 PM:	#18
reincarnated wrote: Cuthbert wrote: Cuthbert wrote: One standard answer is that we are free when we do what we want. Sometimes we do what we want. It can also be true that what we want and what we do is due to a long train of cause and effect. So it can be true both that we are free and that we are causally determined. This is indeed the compatibilist view of freedom. It works. reincarnated, I don't recall offhand if I asked you this before, but in any case I would be interested in any and all responses from those who participate in "free will" discussions regarding a simple thought experiment. It really does seem where the discussion must start (for obvious reasons): If you turn back the universe and let it run forward again do you get the same universe? And do this experiment with and without humans (if there is any difference in outcomes). My own response is that the universe will never be precisely the same period, with or without humans.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/30/09 - 08:31 PM:	#19
treemanshope wrote: The structural functioning of the nervous system determines perception, But, is not clearly defined. The nervous system is a closed system to the extent that what enters from the senses or medium is not the main phenomena of perception, perception mainly has to do with the overall pattern of the brain. Light falling on the retina is only a small perturbation to the ongoing internal buzzing of the brain. “not clearly defined” may simply be a limit of our knowledge (epistemology), it does not follow that there is necessarily any fundamental uncertainty or indeterminism (ontology). Hence all this is so far compatible with ontic determinism. treemanshope wrote: The problem with determinism is that order at any given moment is truly disturbed by disorder. An event is a true eruption a catastrophy and a restructuring of the system. The system can change its structure through random perturbations and still maintain its organization, but in a different way, with more or less complexity. Why is this a “problem with determinism”? How does any of this show that determinism is false? Once again, the observation of order or disorder is simply an epistemic perspective of the world, apparent disorder does not necessarily indicate ontic indeterminism. treemanshope wrote: Culture and unconscious principles of ordering can change in generation through literacy and electronic information and pictures. Some systems of ordering I'm sure are more firmly established and would change more slowly. I don’t disagree, but I don’t see what any of this has to do with determinism or lack of determinism? mutemaler wrote: reincarnated, I don't recall offhand if I asked you this before, but in any case I would be interested in any and all responses from those who participate in "free will" discussions regarding a simple thought experiment. It really does seem where the discussion must start (for obvious reasons): If you turn back the universe and let it run forward again do you get the same universe? And do this experiment with and without humans (if there is any difference in outcomes). My own response is that the universe will never be precisely the same period, with or without humans. IF the universe is deterministic, then by definition it will necessarily be the same again (both with and without humans). IF the universe is (in any way shape or form) indeterministic, then by definition it will not necessarily be the same again (either with or without humans). But what does this have to do with free will? My question (which I think is much more interesting) would be: If you could wind the clock back and repeat a so-called ‘free will” decision that you made in the past (with absolutely all antecedent states exactly the same as they were the first time around), would you choose any differently to the way you chose the first time around, and if your answer to this is “yes”, then why would you choose differently? (note: "all antecedent states exactly the same" includes your brain/mind/memory - on the second time around you would have no memory of your first choice or any of its consequences)
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4158

Posted 10/31/09 - 05:00 AM:	#20
The universe is both orderly and disorderly. Just because we find a great deal of order in the universe does not mean everything is ultimately orderly any more than just because we find a great deal of chaos in the universe means it is ultimately chaotic. The same holds true for free will and determinism. The simplest explanation is that such terms are merely relative concepts that are dependent upon the context in which they are used and only reflect limited perspectives of life, the universe, and everything. Einstein saw the universe as fatalistic, a perfect jewel with amazing symmetry. That is why he complained so much about quantum mechanics which suggests the possibility that all that order is merely the result of utter chaos, a chance roll of the dice that after a zillion rolls gives you the illusion of order. The obvious solution is that both are right and wrong, that ultimately life, the universe, and everything may simply be too big for any labels we mere mortals can conceive. Similar to the old Indian story of the five blind men who each touched a different part of an elephant and could not agree as to what an elephant was like. Nor do I see the slightest advantage to adopting one view over the other, while I see a great deal of advantage to adopting the idea that they are simply relative terms like up and down.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.