The Choice

[Darth Dane]

For an act of free will to occur, whether it be physical, emotional or mentally, it can't be dependant of something else.

It can't be dependant of society, family, friends, organs, molecules or atoms.



If it is dependant it isn't free.

If all of our choices are dependant of something else, it becomes the cause and effect run, with infinite regression to boot.

This leads to determinism or randomism.

This is turn means that we cannot judge anyone for their actions.
If all our "choices" are dependant of something else, how can we judge another being for ex. killing someone, if they have no choice?

The atoms of the universe, either pre-determined or random, lead, through the brain, to a person killing someone else, and they had no say in it, they could't choose differently.

So in effect, when we judge someone or something, we acknowledge, free will. Acknowledging free will, is acknowledging something supernatural, or something above or outside the observed universe, with all it's "natural" phenomenon.




If all is determined, then perhaps the oracle has a point when she answers Neo:
"NEO
But if you already know, how can I make a choice?

THE ORACLE
Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it."




So if we have free will, from where does it come?
It can't be the observed universe, through any "official" science, because it would lead to a dependency of atoms.

So if we have free will, we cannot see, hear or touch the "place" of free will.
This "place" some would call "God".

God has been said to be indivisible and unseen by human eyes.

We use our consciousness, to act in the world. If there is free will, then our consciousness is linked to this "place".

So to discover the source, one must find the root of consciousness and where our thoughts come from.



Free will => Supernatural or "God"

Non-free will => inability to judge anyone or anything for their actions.



Ironically you have to choose which is true.

Everyone has in measure what they need to believe as they choose

[Godless Wonder]

I don't buy your premise that lack of free will means that we cannot or should not judge the actions of others.

Judging is just an emerged feature of the big pinball machine.

[Darth Dane]

I don't buy your premise that lack of free will means that we cannot or should not judge the actions of others.

Of course you can judge.

But if a ball has no "choice" but to drop to the ground when you release it, will you judge it is being "good" or "bad"?

It cannot do anything else, than what it does.

Besides any judgement, is not a judgement, you couldn't do(judge) in any other way than you did.

[Godless Wonder]

And my judgment of it cannot be anything other than my judgement of it.

[Johnnie Walker]

In the pure sense there is no free will. But this does not mean we cannot judge the actions of a person. We can still judge a person on how their actions effect us or the community.

Often before making any action (or inaction) we have to make a choice. Sometimes this is an instinctive choice, sometimes it is a conscious choice. Instinctively or consciously we weigh the outcome of our actions before we make them. We are less likely to do bad stuff if we will be judged negatively for that action or inaction. Especially if that judgement carries sanctions - such as imprisonment or social exclusion.

In short, absence of free will does imply that there cannot be objective judgement. But in the real world it is subjective judgement that counts. This is not an argument for moral relativism, because our subjective human judgements are pretty much universal and are ultimately based on the cold hard reality of reproductive success within a social species.

Anyway, life is so complex that for practical purposes we may as well act as if there is free will.

[Johnnie Walker]

Judging is just an emerged feature of the big pinball machine.

Exactly!:notworthy

[The Bearded One]

Free will is an illusion, but it is an incredibly complicated illusion. There are so many factors which contribute to "choice" that they may as well be called "free". There is a term for when a computer locks up due to two or more tasks which have equal weight. The computer is "thrashing" until some other factor nudges the choice in one direction or another. This happens to humans also, when there are two or more "choices" whose import is so equal that we cannot make a rational decision.

Human minds work mechanistically, but that doesn't mean that they are simple. It doesn't mean that anyone understands them or can predict them. Thus there is no reason not to act as though we all have free will; to do otherwise is the road to solipsism or nihilism.

-- The Bearded One

[dshimel]

Let's fall back on the "One person always tells the truth, one person always lies" logic problem. It is useless to ask "Do you tell the truth?" or "Do you lie?" because both will claim to tell the truth and both will deny being a lier. Basd on these questions, both will appear the same.

If our actions are pre-determined, random, based on free-will, or some combination is irrelivant as they would, and do, appear the same from our point of view. There is no "what would he say if I asked if he lies" litmus test to determine the cause of the outcome.

So, let's examine what we should do in the lack of knowledge we find our selves in. If the universe is predetermined, than we can't help or harm the outcome by judging. If it is random, then again, we are just part of the system randomly affecting outcome. No harm no foul. IF there is any free-will control than it is in our best interest to judge as wrong behavior that negativly affects us.

Therefore, despite our inability to answer the question, the best option is to proceed with the assumption that there is free-will.

While similar to Pascal's Wager, there are several large differences. Pascal's Wager does not tell us which religion to beleive, and accepting God without evidence does have negative consequences if wrong.

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

It can even be said that judgement is a by-product of determinism.

Suppose Person A made an action. Said person was led to making that action based on his psychological profile, the circumstances, and other such factors.

In the same situation, Person B would have reacted otherwise (due to different upbringing, different genes, or whatnot). So, Person B judges Person A, because the action Person B would have made is not identical to the one that Person A made. The more different those two actions are, the less favourable Person B's judgement is.

It comes naturally to us to be suspicious against actions and thought different to our own. That's whence the notion of judgement originates.

I am reminded of this joke: in ancient Greece, the servant of a deterministic philosopher stole something. The theft was exposed, and they brought the servant before his master in order for him to judge him.
"Please don't punish me!" the servant cried. "It was my fate to steal!"
"Then it is my fate to punish you!" the philosopher retaliated.

SBS ;)

[graymouser]

Responsibility is an amazingly complex question in the free will debate. Robert Kane edited an excellent contemporary anthology, Free Will (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0631221026/qid=1080054397/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9664976-5802233?v=glance&s=books), with some excellent (but very difficult) articles on the subject, but the short of it is - your assumption that there is no responsibility without libertarian (remember, I'm speaking in the philosophical sense here) free will is one that is still entirely at question, and compatibilism is actually ahead these days.

It's certainly not good ground for a variant on the Argument from Morality. This is trebly true - because many libertarians are in fact atheists, and because libertarian free will is not clearly compatible with theism. Kane's anthology also has a section on the latter point.

-Wayne

[Darth Dane]

It can even be said that judgement is a by-product of determinism.

Yes, exactly. Even this discussion is under the law of cause and effect, I write this, and you write that.

Its like program hacking programs, if there is no free will. We follow our programming however complex it is.

Someone does one thing, and another, due to his individual programming, judges him.

One program judging a different program, by its own programming.

How can one program, judge that another program is not doing as it is supposed to?

[Darth Dane]

If a man acts, and you say it was wrong. Do you not acknowledge that he had a choice, that he could have acted "right"?

[Volker]

First, the idea of free will can be brushed aside with one observation made by Schopenhauer:

I can do what I will, but I can't will what I will

What dose that mean? I offer an analogy. Say, we have two choices that we can make, A and B. We are weighting what we will do, like we do on a pair of scales. On one side we are weighting all that speaks for A and against B, on the other side all that speaks for B but against A. There are a lot of influencing factors we consider, some of them conscious, some of them are unconscious. Whatever "weights heavier" we will do. This is, of course, highly subjective.

If we know every influencing factor, we can see what the optimal choice is. Sometimes, this balances out, and we find it difficult to make a decision. It it is completely balanced out, it really does not matter how we decide, because both decisions are equivalent.

The more the scale tips into one direction, the easier is the decision. Actually, there is a range where we consider decisions to be equivalent. But the optimum decision is always the one that tips a little bit or a lot to one side.

Now how comes free will into play? It could be nothing more than another influencing factor that puts weight on one scale. Either, it tips the scale further in the direction of the optimum decision, than free will "causes" us to do what we would have done without free will. In this case, free will is irrelevant. It can, of course, tip our scale into the direction of the suboptimal decision. In this case, free will influences us to do something that we wouldn't have done without free will, because it "forces" us to do something we wouldn't have done in the first place, we make a bad decision.

This won't work the other way round, because, in most cases, there is only one optimal decision. We could argue that our "optimal decision" isn't optimal, but on what ground? And if this is the case, it will sometimes make us take the better solution and sometimes it won't, statistically this will balance out. Not necessarily in one individuum.

So all free will can do is to force us to make worse decisions than without free will, especially, when free will is kontracausal. In other cases, it doesn't help us a bit. And can we decide whether to make use of the free will? And is this a free will decision? And so on, ad infinitum. If we can't decide whether we use our "free will", we are forced either to do what we will do without free will, or we are forced to compromise our decisions.

The only way free will is helpfull to us is when decisions balance out and we find us unable to make a decision. Than something random is helpfull.

[graymouser]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
If a man acts, and you say it was wrong. Do you not acknowledge that he had a choice, that he could have acted "right"? What does that phrase even mean?

Any decision comes from a person's mind. The mind is a complex iterative system, which means that it is not wholly predictable (because it is the nature of complex iterative systems to contain a sufficient number of variables such that all cannot be known by an observer) but not that it is exempt from the Law of Causality. No thought-event in the mind is acausal; indeed, all can be causally traced to the firing of neurons in highly complex patterns. These neurons fire as they do because of a combination of heredity and history; your genes and events in your life combine with the forces of nature to completely cause every thought that enters your mind. (Quantum events don't count here because we're on too grand of a scale.) Every fact about a person is caused; therefore every choice anyone makes is also caused.

So, rewinding to exactly before an event happened, no, one could never have done otherwise. However, moral judgments do not require contracausal freedom (libertarian free will). The human intuition is that certain events are right or wrong, and we are responsible for them when they are not externally caused (e.g., by coercion). "John stole the money of his own free will" does not mean that John was uncaused in stealing the money, but that John was not coerced to steal the money. There is a great deal of literature about this subject, and I suggest you delve into it.

-Wayne

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
If a man acts, and you say it was wrong. Do you not acknowledge that he had a choice, that he could have acted "right"?
I don't think that judgement implicates such a statement. As I said above (I think), judgement is just a comparison between a person's actions and what the actions that the judge would have (theorhetically) taken in the same situation.

Or, to dispense with the subjectivity of judges, judgement is a comparison between a person's actions and what the social standards expected of that person to do. That doesn't involve or require a choice. It is quite natural if a person's psyche is totally different to the "model citizen" of a society. Because of that difference (ooh, determinism again! :p ), the society would deem the person's actions "wrong."

SBS :)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Acknowledging free will, is acknowledging something supernatural, or something above or outside the observed universe, with all it's "natural" phenomenon.
Incorrect.

Consider Deep Blue: it is a fully deterministic computer program, understood on every level by the men who programmed it.

Yet it can defeat them at chess.

How can it be that a machine built by a man can contain knowledge (how to win at chess) the man does not have?

It's called complexity.

[Darth Dane]

Consider Deep Blue: it is a fully deterministic computer program, understood on every level by the men who programmed it.

Yes.

How can it be that a machine built by a man can contain knowledge (how to win at chess) the man does not have?

It's called complexity.

Yes, but the chess machine has no choice but to be a chess-machine. It can due to its programming change itself and become a new first person shooter. It doesn't have a choice.

As Volker said, a computer weighs the input it gets, via the other player, and finds the most optimum move, based on memory.
Interesting enough, the computer program itself cannot store memory, it has to use something else.

But all this is still causal.

Free will implies that a computerprogram can do something it wasn't designed to do.

If it can't change, then any judgement of another program, which is unable to change, seems arrogant, since it is random who gets what programming.

[graymouser]

DD:

Libertarians (wrt free will, of course) insist that moral judgments based on choice in a deterministic world should be withheld because all choices are determined. This is not too far from how things really work.

When John Q. Hypothetical does something that his society considers wrong, it is evaluated on the basis of his control - not on his total lack of causality, but on which factors were causal. First, we look to see if John's misdeed was forced on him by another: coercion. If it was, the penalties will probably be mitigated. Then, we look to see if John's misdeed was taken out of his control by psychological instability: mental illness. These are both effective defenses - because John's act was not under his conscious control.

The thing of it is, if John is psychologically healthy and commits a crime without coercion, then his actions have violated the agreements of the society that he is a part of; and the society is within rights to punish him for it. And that's how we still have justice without wonky mystical free will. Is it perfect? No. But it works.

-Wayne

[Jamie_L]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
For an act of free will to occur, whether it be physical, emotional or mentally, it can't be dependant of something else.

If our choices aren't dependent on something else, they must be random. Whether or not our choices are dependent on anything does not solve the puzzle of free will.

It seems intuitively obvious that we have free will. It seems logically obvious that we don't. Philosophers have debated this for about as long as there have been philosophers, people have thought longer and harder about this than most of us, and still there is no solution. Welcome to life as a human being.

Jamie

[breathilizer]

OP, have you been reading my posts? :)

Anyway, I believe that free will does not exist. I believe in just what you have explained: action/reaction.

YES, you can judge people who kill. You judge whether or not they are a threat to you or others, and you punish them by locking them away. Judging them on other grounds, such as morality, is not appropriate, since we do not control our thoughts.

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
If our choices aren't dependent on something else, they must be random. Whether or not our choices are dependent on anything does not solve the puzzle of free will.

It seems intuitively obvious that we have free will. It seems logically obvious that we don't. Philosophers have debated this for about as long as there have been philosophers, people have thought longer and harder about this than most of us, and still there is no solution. Welcome to life as a human being.

Jamie

Well, define random.

When you roll a pair of dice, is the outcome random? To your mind it seems random, but from the moment you let go (arguably before you let go... hell, arguably since the big bang), the dice are destined to land however they will land. There is no moment at which the dice decide. We are the same way. We react. Even when we think before we act, those thoughts are our reaction.

I repeat... Our thoughts, our planning, our premeditation... they ARE our natural, physical, chemical reactions to our environment.

There is nothing supernatural (ie free will) about it.

[Darth Dane]

If our choices aren't dependent on something else, they must be random. Whether or not our choices are dependent on anything does not solve the puzzle of free will.

Why must they be random?

Doesn't free mean independant?

Anyway, I believe that free will does not exist. I believe in just what you have explained: action/reaction.


It is of course the way of all things, you see there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truce. Causality. Action, Reaction, cause and effect... Choice is an illusion created between those with power, and those without. - The Merovingian

Everything begins with a choice - Morpheus

No, wrong. Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without. Look there, at that woman. My God, just look at her. Effecting everyone around her so obvious, so bergouis, so boring, but wait. Watch, you see I have sent her a dessert, A very special dessert. I wrote it myself. It starts so simply. Each line of the program creating a new fate. Just like - poetry. First, a rush, heat, her heart flutters. You can see it Neo, yes? She does not understand. Why, is it the wine? No. What is it then, what is the reason? And soon, it does not matter. Soon the why and the reason are gone, and all that matters is the feeling itself. And this is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it, we fight to deny it. But it is of course pretense, it is a lie. Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is - we are completely - out of control. (Way cool digipussy effect)
Causality, there is no escape from it we are all slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the why. Why, is what seperates us from them, you from me. Why is the only real source of power without it you are powerless. And this is how you come to me, without why, without power, another link in the chain. But fear not, since I have seen how good you are at following orders, I will tell you what to do next. Run back, and give the fortune teller this message. Her time is almost up. Now, I have some real business to do so I will say adieu and goodbye.
- Merovingian


Judging them on other grounds, such as morality, is not appropriate, since we do not control our thoughts.

We do not control our thoughts?

Can we not choose to have no thought?

[Jamie_L]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Why must they be random?

If a choice is dependent on nothing else, then on what basis is the choice made? On no basis. If there is no causation behind the choice, then the choice is arbitrary. When you really delve into the philosophy of free will, there doesn't appear to be any way to ascribe responsibility to people for their actions. Either their actions are pre-determined, or they are arbitrary.

For an interesting read that goes over this in brief detail, check out Free Will (http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014) in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online.

Jamie

[Darth Dane]

If a choice is dependent on nothing else, then on what basis is the choice made?

On Nothing(Ayn Sof)

Or

on infinite possibilities

Does our consciousness have infinite possibility?

I can think and dragons and all kinds of "impossibilties".

[dshimel]

As a computer programmer, I can't "create" a truely random event to occur within a program. Sure, I set up some very complex mathamatical formula that appears to generate random numbers, yet it is really just producing a very long, yet eventually repeating, pattern of numbers.

If we start at the same place each time the formula is used, it will produce the same numbers over and over again.

So, we seed the psudo-random number generator with something like "time". This makes where we start within the pattern "random"..... Well, really, where we start is just dependant on when someone starts the program, what other programs are running, etc. Given identical circumstances, down to the millionith of a second, we'd not only use the same pattern of numbers, but start at the exact same place within the pattern.

In fact, this bit us in the butt just a couple weeks ago. We were using a psudo-random number generator to create a "random" number between 1 and 99,999 to create a table name. The system is intended to scale to a couple hundred users, and the users will use the temp table for a few seconds every couple minutes. The odds of two users picking the same number at the same time were small.

Problem was, each time we created the temp table, we were seeding the random number generator with a call to Time().milliseconds() which returned a number between 0 and 999. So, even though the random number generator was returning a number between 1 and 99,999, we were resetting it to one of 1000 possible starting points before sucking out a single number. The odds of a collision was 100 times as high as expected, and indeed, was happening several times a minute.

What was the point?

Oh, if the time the program is started is "predetermined" from the moment of the Big Bang, then indeed, the program itself is predetermined to pick a set of numbers.

However, whether or not the program is predetermined or not is irrelivant. When it actually runs, it "appears" to be random, and therefore works.

Regardless of whether things in reality are random or predetermined, it is in our best interest to proceed as if they are random.

[Darth Dane]

If we have a room, that is completely empty, where there is only nothing, anything can be put into it.

Our consciousness is like that empty room, filled with behavioural patterns, memories and so on.

Consciousness is entwined at the root of existance, where else would you find a place where something can come into existence from nothing?

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
We do not control our thoughts?

Can we not choose to have no thought?
I should have said "since they do not control their thought," but it applies to you and I as well, so "we" slipped in there

You can not choose to have no thought (minus suicide)

[dshimel]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
If we have a room, that is completely empty, where there is only nothing, anything can be put into it.

Our consciousness is like that empty room, filled with behavioural patterns, memories and so on.

Consciousness is entwined at the root of existance, where else would you find a place where something can come into existence from nothing?

But, consciousness does not exist within a completely empty room. It exists within an almost unimaginativly complex biological computer. This competer is the result of 4 billion years of evolution, and even that came into existance from matter, which came from energy of the Big Bang. Where that came from, we have no way of knowing.

The biological computer in which consciouness is manifest, is a combination of physical connections (brain tissues) and chemical patterns(memories, emotional responses, thought patterns, learned behavior, etc). Changing the memories and thought patterns would alter the operation. However, exposing two people to identicle "life expereince" would not produce two idneticle consciousnesses.

The debate over "biology" or "environment" has been setteled and the answer is "both".

As for the debate over random or predetermined, the debate is as moot as "what caused the big bang?". There is no way to know.

[graymouser]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
If we have a room, that is completely empty, where there is only nothing, anything can be put into it.If you have a room that is completely empty, it will collapse into itself. Can't be helped. "Empty" rooms are full - of air. We move solid objects in and displace the air.

Our consciousness is like that empty room, filled with behavioural patterns, memories and so on.No, it's not - our brains have complex setups (patterns and memories and much more) and different stimuli (internally and externally) that cause reactions. We do not bring in thoughts ex nihilo.

Creativity - which I find quite essential to my own life - is basically a new way of ordering existing elements. You never get to start with nothing.

Consciousness is entwined at the root of existance, where else would you find a place where something can come into existence from nothing? Nothing comes from nothing.

-Wayne

[Jamie_L]

It is meaningless to say a choice is made based on "infinite possibliities."

Going back to Volker's example of the scale. If a choice is to have no dependencies, this is equivalent to the scales being empty on both sides. Using the phrase "infinite possibilities" does not seem to change the fact that there is nothing on either side of the scale. If the scales are empty (or perfectly balanced), the choice is arbitrary. If the scales are unbalanced, the choice is determined.

If "free will" flows from God, then it seems like that's just another way of saying God makes our choices for us. Again, no responsibility.

Jamie

[Darth Dane]

But, consciousness does not exist within a completely empty room

You looked past my point. The room is also consciousness.

In our consciousness, we are masters of time. In our consciousness we only experience now.

In our mind we can create an empty room and fill it up.

P.s. Yogi's call all of existence for absolute consciousness.

[Xyzzy]

Yes, but the chess machine has no choice but to be a chess-machine. It can due to its programming change itself and become a new first person shooter. It doesn't have a choice.

You have similar limitations. You can not change from a human being to be, say, a chess machine. You can make lots of complex choices, but you can't make any choice which is outside of your basic programming as a human being.

This programming is not immediately apparent to you, but it should be if you consider the kinds of choices you are not likely to ever make.

As Volker said, a computer weighs the input it gets, via the other player, and finds the most optimum move, based on memory.

Your brain does the same when considering your own activities. Just the number of factors which go into your decisions are somewhat more complex, and less open to examination than the chess computer.

Free will implies that a computerprogram can do something it wasn't designed to do.

Neural network learning programs do this. Does this mean they have free will?

Actually, it does.

If it can't change, then any judgement of another program, which is unable to change, seems arrogant, since it is random who gets what programming.

You are also a learning computer program. A complex one.

You overestimate your own ability to make choices. If you think about it very deeply, you'll realize you don't in fact make a wide variety of choices.

What you do, and the choices you make are really directly similar to most computer programs. The causes are more complex, and certainly less predictable, but still quite regular and directly caused by your mental states.

And we don't hold people responsible for their actions because they're not deterministic and they can't change them. We hold them responsible for their actions because doing this in a deterministic world causes the deterministic function of OTHER peoples brains to take the possibility of consequences and punishment into account in future decisions.

A person will violate a social contract, we will deterministically punish them, other persons deterministically see this, it affects their mental states, deterministically we reduce the number of future similar actions deterministically. This is justice and morality.

[Darth Dane]

You have similar limitations. You can not change from a human being to be, say, a chess machine

I will assume you don't mean physically ;)

Can I remove my programming?

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Xyzzy
You have similar limitations. You can not change from a human being to be, say, a chess machine. You can make lots of complex choices, but you can't make any choice which is outside of your basic programming as a human being.

This programming is not immediately apparent to you, but it should be if you consider the kinds of choices you are not likely to ever make.



Your brain does the same when considering your own activities. Just the number of factors which go into your decisions are somewhat more complex, and less open to examination than the chess computer.



Neural network learning programs do this. Does this mean they have free will?

Actually, it does.



You are also a learning computer program. A complex one.

You overestimate your own ability to make choices. If you think about it very deeply, you'll realize you don't in fact make a wide variety of choices.

What you do, and the choices you make are really directly similar to most computer programs. The causes are more complex, and certainly less predictable, but still quite regular and directly caused by your mental states.

And we don't hold people responsible for their actions because they're not deterministic and they can't change them. We hold them responsible for their actions because doing this in a deterministic world causes the deterministic function of OTHER peoples brains to take the possibility of consequences and punishment into account in future decisions.

A person will violate a social contract, we will deterministically punish them, other persons deterministically see this, it affects their mental states, deterministically we reduce the number of future similar actions deterministically. This is justice and morality.

WOW !!! THAT was smart !!! (if there ever was such a thing). Honestly and sincerely, that was really well thought out. I think you have most of the explanations about the human mind covered and explained. You certainly covered alot of the bases. So since you have done that. I would like to move on to "why" we do things. "Why do I ask why?". Strange. It has no benefit. Sometimes "why does it work" gets confused with what is really "how does it work". But if it's truly "why" does it work, it is a whole different matter, in terms of thinking. So why do we bother to ask why? (come to think of it, why did I bother?). Strange.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Xyzzy

And we don't hold people responsible for their actions because they're not deterministic and they can't change them. We hold them responsible for their actions because doing this in a deterministic world causes the deterministic function of OTHER peoples brains to take the possibility of consequences and punishment into account in future decisions.

A person will violate a social contract, we will deterministically punish them, other persons deterministically see this, it affects their mental states, deterministically we reduce the number of future similar actions deterministically. This is justice and morality. Wow! Were there actually people involved with this? Sounds a bit too deterministic to me. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Volker

First, the idea of free will can be brushed aside with one observation made by Schopenhauer:

I can do what I will, but I can't will what I will So, are you free to think about it? :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder

And my judgment of it cannot be anything other than my judgement of it. So everything becomes etched in stone once you do something right? But what if you change your mind? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darth Dane

If a man acts, and you say it was wrong. Do you not acknowledge that he had a choice, that he could have acted "right"? Hey, is it possible to get the wrong idea about something? Quick, don't look back! :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by breathilizer

Anyway, I believe that free will does not exist. I believe in just what you have explained: action/reaction.What if you choose to sit there and do nothing, when you realize you could have acted upon it? ;)

[Volker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, are you free to think about it? :D

I can think about it, if I'm free to do it is another question. I don't think that I'm free to think about it because it is a question I can't avoid.

Granted I have free will, you still haven't shown that contrary to my analysis free will is a good thing. It is a good thing if I can't make an decision, because the alternatives are very close, and I have to decide. But in every other case free will does more harm than good, if it overrides the choice I would follow if there was nothing like free will.

So I think if something like free will exists it is limited to the cases where the alternatives are too close to make a reasonable decision. In this case, tossing a coin would do the same, hence free will is nothing more than being able to choose randomly, which is usefull on some occasions.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Volker

I can think about it, if I'm free to do it is another question. I don't think that I'm free to think about it because it is a question I can't avoid.

Granted I have free will, you still haven't shown that contrary to my analysis free will is a good thing. It is a good thing if I can't make an decision, because the alternatives are very close, and I have to decide. But in every other case free will does more harm than good, if it overrides the choice I would follow if there was nothing like free will.

So I think if something like free will exists it is limited to the cases where the alternatives are too close to make a reasonable decision. In this case, tossing a coin would do the same, hence free will is nothing more than being able to choose randomly, which is usefull on some occasions. Sometimes I like chocolate, sometimes I like vanilla. Sometimes I'll choose something completely different entirely. :)

Of course that isn't to say human's aren't creatures of habit, because they are. But, what were they before they developed these habits? While we all reserve the right to change our own minds too don't we?

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sometimes I chocolate, sometimes I like vanilla. Sometimes I'll chose something completely different entirely. :)

Of course that isn't to say human's aren't creatures of habit, because they are. But, what were they before they developed these habits? While we all reserve the right to change our own minds don't we?
Yes. SOMEtimes, you pick chocolate, and SOME times you pick vanilla, but if if you duplicate a scenario down to the T, from the weather, to the time of day, to what the day before was like, to what you were feeling/thinking at the time, to what you ate last, you will ALWAYS choose the same thing.

Ever seen Groundhog's Day? The only reason Bill Murray was the only one that "chose" his actions was because he woke up each morning with a changed variable, his memory. If he did not have memory of the repeated days and was just like everyone else, he would have woken up every day, made the same mistakes, said the same words, taken the same steps, etc.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by breathilizer

Yes. SOMEtimes, you pick chocolate, and SOME times you pick vanilla, but if if you duplicate a scenario down to the T, from the weather, to the time of day, to what the day before was like, to what you were feeling/thinking at the time, to what you ate last, you will ALWAYS choose the same thing.

Ever seen Groundhog's Day? The only reason Bill Murray was the only one that "chose" his actions was because he woke up each morning with a changed variable, his memory. If he did not have memory of the repeated days and was just like everyone else, he would have woken up every day, made the same mistakes, said the same words, taken the same steps, etc. Of course this would all be contingent upon nothing changing which, is not possible. And even if we could similate such a thing, how would we take into account the fact that our bodies age/change?

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course this would all be contingent upon nothing changing which, is not possible. And even if we could similate such a thing, how would we take into account the fact that our bodies age/change? Uh, reset the simulation from saved state, duh.

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course this would all be contingent upon nothing changing which, is not possible. And even if we could similate such a thing, how would we take into account the fact that our bodies age/change?
omfg, Iacchus...

You DON"T take that into account. I said that if everything is played out in exactly the same way.

That means that if every single atom in the universe is in a certain location and going at a certain speed and direction, even the one inside your head that make your thoughts, you will do EXACTLY the same thing.

This doesn't mean you do it once, then do it again to see if it happens again, because the second time, you will have memory of the first, and that means that the situation will not be EXACTLY the same.

EXACTLY

hello?

EXACTLY

EXACTLY

EXACTLY

No differences

None

Zero

Nada

Everything is THE SAME

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by breathilizer
Yes. SOMEtimes, you pick chocolate, and SOME times you pick vanilla, but if if you duplicate a scenario down to the T, from the weather, to the time of day, to what the day before was like, to what you were feeling/thinking at the time, to what you ate last, you will ALWAYS choose the same thing.

Ever seen Groundhog's Day? The only reason Bill Murray was the only one that "chose" his actions was because he woke up each morning with a changed variable, his memory. If he did not have memory of the repeated days and was just like everyone else, he would have woken up every day, made the same mistakes, said the same words, taken the same steps, etc.
But only he would make those same decisions and choices time and time again. So whilst the chain of events is deterministic in some way, the actual result of the acts of the individual are still free choices, if the person knows and understands what they are doing in any given situation.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by breathilizer

You DON"T take that into account. I said that if everything is played out in exactly the same way.

That means that if every single atom in the universe is in a certain location and going at a certain speed and direction, even the one inside your head that make your thoughts, you will do EXACTLY the same thing.

This doesn't mean you do it once, then do it again to see if it happens again, because the second time, you will have memory of the first, and that means that the situation will not be EXACTLY the same. Predeterminism huh? Aren't these the same qualities that you and/or others ascribe to the God that doesn't exist?

By the way, I don't exist in the past or the future, but in the present, and this is where it's happening man!

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Predeterminism huh? Aren't these the same qualities that you and/or others ascribe to the God that doesn't exist?

By the way, I don't exist in the past or the future, but in the present, and this is where it's happening man!
No, breathilizer isn't talking about predeterminism in the way you mean; he's talking about the necessary consequences of mechanistic actions, i.e.: the metaphysical idea of determinism.

If God exists, then all actions are predetermined. Determinism neither involves or rejects God(s).

[Iacchus]

Also, in adding to what I just said, the fact that something is always changing and is variable, will mean you will always have a different choice. So, if you don't at least behave like you have free will, then I would advice you not to stand in the middle of the street, lest you get smacked head on by that bus which is about to run you down!

[breathilizer]

Actually, it means that you will have a different reaction, not make a different "choice"

Choice doesn't exist. It is a perception we have because we have different reactions in similar situations, but no one has ever been in the exact some situation twice.

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Also, in adding to what I just said, the fact that something is always changing and is variable, will mean you will always have a different choice. So, if you don't at least behave like you have free will, then I would advice you not to stand in the middle of the street, lest you get smacked head on by that bus which is about to mow you down!
But think of it this way: that bus will be passing along that street always. No matter how many times you go back in time, at that moment in time, on that day, in that location, the bus goes by. (Deterministic cause).

Now you have the choice to stand in the middle of the road and get knocked down, or not. (Free will).

Of course it could be argued that there will always be some reason to make you choose either way, and bus depends on a driver at a company, full of individuals with free will, but who also make certain choices under certain conditions, and wouldn't make any other choices.

So do you subscribe to the notion that everything is only the natural result of some other mechanistic course or that free will plays a part in what decisions are made? Is it determinism or libertarianism? "The choice is yours..." :D

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Ellis10
Now you have the choice to stand in the middle of the road and get knocked down, or not. (Free will).


no you don't. If you replay the SAME situation over and over, that means that your thought process is exactly the same every time too, so you will not step out onto the street unless you step out onto the street every single time.

Basically what your example implies is that the person involved has memory of the bus coming by on the other (same) day, but that would make the situation different than the others, thus changing a variable, thus causing a different reaction that you perceive as choice, even though its not

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by breathilizer

Actually, it means that you will have a different reaction, not make a different "choice"

Choice doesn't exist. It is a perception we have because we have different reactions in similar situations, but no one has ever been in the exact some situation twice. So, do you get all upset about religious people telling you how to think? Why should you, there's no choice in the matter. Or for that matter, what's the point in arguing about it here?

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by breathilizer
no you don't. If you replay the SAME situation over and over, that means that your thought process is exactly the same every time too, so you will not step out onto the street unless you step out onto the street every single time.

Basically what your example implies is that the person involved has memory of the bus coming by on the other (same) day, but that would make the situation different than the others, thus changing a variable, thus causing a different reaction that you perceive as choice, even though its not
Yes breathilizier, that's the point I was trying to make!

I was trying to say that if you went back in time, or if you had knowledge of the day's events (ala Groundhog Day) then the world around you would be the deterministic view and you would have free will. Of course this is not the case in real life, although we all like to think that the world goes by and we can interact with it at "will".

Sorry if I didn't make my point clear, but I was trying to help you make your point.

Since we aren't repeating the same day, and don't know the future or the nature of the world around us, our interactions with the world are purely cause and effect, based on our personalities granted, but in such a way that Mr. XYZ will always choose 123 in situation ABC. Such is the metaphysical position of Determinism, which renders free will ultimately null and void.

[phil]

there seems to be an idea that free will and causality cannot coexist. Many of you should no by now that few things in nature are idealistic.

Consider if we really did have 'free' will in the purist sense. None of the actions we take would be affected directly or indirectly by other things. There would be complete chaos! Every action a person would make would be for no reason! Nothing anybody or anthything did could affect your decision. You could not be moved by compassion to give to charity etc.

Freedom comes at a price, and total freedom isn't a good thing. People are free in America, but there are certain freedoms we give up so we can actually have society. That is why people are restricted against speeding, killing, raping, cheating on taxes ect.

Yes, we do have free will, but it is tempered by causality. When we make a decision, we do it for a reason, and that is very important.

When we judge whether a person did something right or wrong we judge them based on their reason. If we judged people just based on their actions then there wouldn't be any difference in penalty for a person who killed another by accident and someone who commited premeditated murder.

Many people consider it ok for soldiers to go and kill others in order to protect their country. (just to clarify, I do think nations and individuals should be able to protect themselves. This is just my opinion and not really relavent to the discussion so...back on track)

So free will is not so much about whether we make choices, but why we make our choices.

-phil

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Predeterminism huh? Aren't these the same qualities that you and/or others ascribe to the God that doesn't exist?

By the way, I don't exist in the past or the future, but in the present, and this is where it's happening man! I think lacchus is referring to the fact that many will make the argument that an omnimax god can't coexist with humans having free will, and an argument being made in this thread is that free will doesn't exist.

Now, if the theist asserts the existence of free will, and the existence of an omnimax god, you can choose to knock down that contradiction, or you can try to knock down free will. many people find the idea of knocking down free will unpalatable for a variety of reasons. One being, you're extremely unlikely to convince a theist that free will does not exist. Another being that people have an intuitive (but I would say incorrect) notion that free will exists, and even many atheists think that free will exists, I'm not sure what the split is there, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were about 60% free-willies, 40% strict materialists.

Lacchus might have a valid complaint if he found a single person making the no-free-will argument and the free-will contradicts omnimax god argument. But even in that case, if the theist asserts freewill + omnimax god, it's fair game to try to convince him that's a contradiction even if the one convincing doesn't actually think that "free will" is a meaningful concept.

[Ellis14]

there seems to be an idea that free will and causality cannot coexist. Many of you should no by now that few things in nature are idealistic.
Hi Phil,

I was discussing the different views of free will. From the deterministic POV, free will doesn't really exist, but from the libertarianistic POV, free will at least in some way is necessary. I'm not making a claim either way, just pointing out the distinctions of both. Certainly both are valid and consistent with experience.

The rest of your post was well made.

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder
40% strict materialists
Hi GW! Great post, just wanted to point out that where you said materialists you mean Determinists. Metaphysical materialism never confirms or denies free will.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ellis10

But think of it this way: that bus will be passing along that street always. No matter how many times you go back in time, at that moment in time, on that day, in that location, the bus goes by. (Deterministic cause). Except it only happened once, and when it did, it was in the present.

Without the present, which speaks for the whole of existence at once, there could be no past nor, future.

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except it only happened once, and when it did, it was in the present.

Without the present, which speaks for the whole of existence at once, there could be no past nor, future.
Not quite sure what your point is, but on this alone, I would say that once it has transpired, the past is irrelevant except as a guide to the present. Certainly at that point the past doesn't really exist, so the present is irrelevant to the past. The future (whatever that is!) however does depend on the present. Since the present is the whole of existence at once (which you very nicely said!) you might even say that you can make whatever future you want by shaping your present accordingly. ;)

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by Ellis10
Yes breathilizier, that's the point I was trying to make!

Oh, I gotcha...

It is very similar to the Paley's Watch rebuttal. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ellis10

Not quite sure what your point is, but on this alone, I would say that once it has transpired, the past is irrelevant except as a guide to the present. Certainly at that point the past doesn't really exist, so the present is irrelevant to the past. The future (whatever that is!) however does depend on the present. Since the present is the whole of existence at once (which you very nicely said!) you might even say that you can make whatever future you want by shaping your present accordingly. ;) There's no time like the present right? ;)

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There's no time like the present right? ;)
Spot on! :notworthy

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Ellis10
Hi GW! Great post, just wanted to point out that where you said materialists you mean Determinists. Metaphysical materialism never confirms or denies free will. Perhaps you're right. I know what I meant, not sure what words to use. Does "Determinists" allow for the possibility of random unpredictable causes? If not, then it isn't the word I want. When I think "determinism" I think "repeatable" and "non-random", probably my computer science background showing. If "metaphysical materialism" doesn't deny the existence of free will, or at least deny the coherence of the concept of free will, then I suppose I have no idea what those words mean.

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder
Perhaps you're right. I know what I meant, not sure what words to use. Does "Determinists" allow for the possibility of random unpredictable causes? If not, then it isn't the word I want. When I think "determinism" I think "repeatable" and "non-random", probably my computer science background showing. If "metaphysical materialism" doesn't deny the existence of free will, or at least deny the coherence of the concept of free will, then I suppose I have no idea what those words mean.
Determinism allows for random seemingly unpredictable causes, but in determinism, every event is the result of cause and effect, in that, given X variables in Y conditions the result Z could be no different. e.g.: tornadoes and hurricanes are not random freak events. Given certain conditions in certain environments, tornadoes will form, it's as simple as that.

We might think of ourselves as having free will, but we each have personalities which themselves are the result of cause and effect. Ellis10 in situation X, with personality Y will always do Z, time and time again. Same for Godless Wonder, Iacchus, breathilisier etc. Determinism is the metaphysical view that everything that occurs can be ascribed to purely mechanistic causes. With such a view, there is ultimately no free will.

Libertarianism is the opposing view that at least some free will is involved in our actions. Some things are the result of cause and effect but humans still have the ability to make free decisions about our actions.

Metaphysical materalism is the view that everything in existence is material or empirical. Materalism denies that the supernatural exists.

None of these positions necessarily imply the other. Materalists are not necessarily atheists, determinists, or libertarianists; and vice-versa.