Determinism and free will .

[M00se1989]

Oh... one of the main questions here is the Laplace demon isn't it?

Its physically impossible to know everything at once... Unless you have people in different times telling you what to do. There has to be some chain of command amongst some sort of collective that bears the idea of consent to free will. Otherwise the mind just kind of stops for a time. The only lack in our ability of free will is allowing another to control you. But how would you know the difference if your only subconsciously committing to the reign of a higher power...

"On this perfect day, when everything is "ripening" and not only the grape turns brown, the eye of the sun just fell upon my life: I looked back, I looked foreward, and never saw so many and such good things at once. It was not for nothing that I buried my 21'st year today; I had the right to bury it; whatever was life in it has been saved, is Immortal The first book of the Revaluation of all Values, the Songs of Zarathustra, the Twilight of the Idols, my attempt to philosophize with a hammer.-all presents of this year, indeed of its last quarter! How could I fail to be grateful to my whole?- and so I tell my life to myself."(Nietzsche)

Tell your life To itself.(Period)

 

[wynn]

its just that some lack the faculty of introspection to recognize and acknowledge it

How come they have that lack? Or is their belief that free will is an illusion that brings on that lack?

Do post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104623

 

[Sarkus]

indeed
furthermore we can invoke occam and accuse the illusionist camp of violations

Feel free to invoke away and explain how the illusionst camp are guilty of "violations".

 

[glaucon]

Feel free to invoke away and explain how the illusionst camp are guilty of "violations".

Indeed.

I too was wondering just what was meant by this...

 

[cluelusshusbund]

LunarSun post #68 from the link below.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104623&page=4

Where it is true disease and birth defects are genetic, and we personally do not have a choice...

Som causes are mor obvous than others... but name a free choise you have made... ie... a choise which was free from influence of you'r genetics or inviroment.???

...the idea of choice can then be tied into the factor that all lives our connected. If one person makes a decision to do something, it then affects the next person, who has a specific experience to make an impact on a choice which will hold an affect on the next person, and the chain goes on.

You have jus demonstrated the logic of how cause an effect works which makes the case of free will bein an illusion :shrug:... unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for free will.!!!

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Emil post #77 from the link below.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104623&page=4

What you think?
Your dreams during a sleep are determined by a causal chain from the real world?
If we have the same reality we will have the same dreams?

Good queston... as far as the causal chain is concerned... dreams are jus anuther part of the "real world".!!!

 

[LunarSun]

Som causes are mor obvous than others... but name a free choise you have made... ie... a choise which was free from influence of you'r genetics or inviroment.???



You have jus demonstrated the logic of how cause an effect works which makes the case of free will bein an illusion :shrug:... unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for free will.!!!

To name a choice free from influence of genetics or environment, I admit, is not possible, for all of our choices are reactions. However, free will still is not an illusion. Though we are all either directly or indirectly affecting each other, there are always more than two choices. We never have to pick only left or right, correct or incorrect, etc. In almost every situation there are multiple choices to choose from, which still allows us to make a choice. So yes, where it is true we are affected by our environment and other people in our lives, we can still always make a choice, whether it is morally sanctified or not, it is still choice.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Som causes are mor obvous than others... but name a free choise you have made... ie... a choise which was free from influence of you'r genetics or inviroment.???

To name a choice free from influence of genetics or environment, I admit, is not possible, for all of our choices are reactions.

...which makes the case of free will bein an illusion... unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for free will.!!!

However, free will still is not an illusion. Though we are all either directly or indirectly affecting each other, there are always more than two choices. We never have to pick only left or right, correct or incorrect, etc. In almost every situation there are multiple choices to choose from, which still allows us to make a choice. So yes, where it is true we are affected by our environment and other people in our lives, we can still always make a choice, whether it is morally sanctified or not, it is still choice.

So you acknowledge that all choises are influenced... you jus dont except that they are 100% influenced... an that the only choise avalable is the choise you choose... but unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for uninfluenced choises... thers zero posibility for free will.!!!

Give an esample of a free choise in which som aspect of that choise is not influenced by prevous causes.???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...what is a choice?

The issue is free will/uninfluenced choise... you'r deterministicaly controled autonomous agent dont fill the bill.!!!

I assume that you think there is no such thing as a "choice" because...

...you clearly think there is no choice made by deterministic systems.

...so no such thing as choice exists, according to you. Is that correct?

My position is... thers no such thang as "free (uninfluenced) choise"... ie... free will is an illusion.!!!

NOTE: never have I said anything that rules out this agent with desires, and basis for expectations of consequences cannot be a deterministic program. So I think choice is possible, if such an agent with wishes, etc. exists (and clearly they do in humans). Probably in a few hundred years autonomous agents with hope, desires, wishes, fears, expectations, wants, etc. will exist in what we call machines also, but not one of these aspects of an autonomous choosing agent is present in your calculator.

While both the autonomous self I postulate to be part of the RTS being executed in parietal brain tissue is just a complex self-aware self-evolving deterministic program like the deterministic calculator, the autonomous self of the RTS has wishes, expectations, etc. so it ("you") can choose, but the calculator cannot.

The diference between a calculator of today an a "robot" from a hundred years from now... is like comparin an amoeba to a human brane... ie... of course a calculator is not yet "evolved" to a pont of bein indistinguishable from the intelegence/emotions of a human brane... but nether the calculator or a human brane has free will.!!!

 

[Billy T]

My position is... theres no such thang as "free (uninfluenced) choise"...

I agree, but you avoided answering my question: (Please define what is a "choice"?) Again I ask: Are you stating that "choice" does not exist?

I claim that even though an autonomous agent, with wishes, desires etc., makes a selection between "a" & "b" based on its deterministic controlling program, it is still making a choice as it has selected what it believes will advance its desires. Are you stating that no choice was made by this agent? (because choice does not exist in any deterministic system, even one with desires and beliefs, such as all humans have)?

Please give a simple, clear answer. Thus far you have only told what choice is not. I am asking what choice is, or a clear statement that it does not exist, if that is your position.

The essence of the difference between the simple calculator and the equally deterministic, constantly-evolving, "self program" of my RTS, is that the "self" ("you") do have desires, etc. and the calculation program does not so it can only respond, not chose to advance it desires. I.e. there is a more important difference than just complexity - a difference in PRINCIPLE. "You" Chose. The calculator just behaves as it has neither desires nor beliefs.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I claim that even though an autonomous agent, with wishes, desires etc., makes a selection between "a" & "b" based on its deterministic controlling program, it is still making a choice as it has selected what it believes will advance its desires. Are you stating that no choice was made by this agent? (because choice does not exist in any deterministic system, even one with desires and beliefs, such as all humans have)?

In a philosophical dicusson such as this... that a or b is chosen is an illusion... ie... i take the term choice to mean free choice... an i see no evidence that free choice esists.!!!

Of course a calculator an a brane are vastly diferent... an the pont of my comparison between a calculator an a human brane was for the purops of pontin out that reguardless of that vast diference... nether have free-will/free-choice.!!!

 

[Billy T]

In a philosophical dicusson such as this... that a or b is chosen is an illusion... ie... i take the term choice to mean free choice... an i see no evidence that free choice {= choice} exists.!!!

Thanks now you have clearly said "choice" does not exist. Belief by many that it does is at best illusion and always an error. In your POV calculators and human selections of output responses are just selections, not choices.

... the pont of my comparison between a calculator an a human brane was for the purops of pontin out that reguardless of that vast diference... nether have free-will/free-choice.!!!

But you cannot conclude that as they have very a great difference OTHER THAN DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY. - Humans have desires and beliefs, calculators don't.
Humans believe that one selection (the choice) is more likely than another to help achieve those desires.

What you are doing is much like concluding a bird can not fly because it is just a biological organism like an amoeba, only much more more advanced and complex. I.e. you are ignoring their main differences: birds have wings and amoebas don't and that humans have desires and calculators don't.

What makes a selection a choice is that it is made by an agent acting on the belief that that selection will help it achieve its desires.

 

[kriminal99]

If you have trouble letting go of free will, all you have to realize is that you never had it to begin with. What you think is free will is just an illusions - it refers to the fact that your experiences deterministically control your actions as opposed to someone else's behavior.

If after anything you did, I asked you why you did it, there would be an answer. There is even an answer for why you chose one thing over another. Some people have to be more aware than others to understand what that answer is. You are hungry - do you work another hour or do you go grab a taco now? The system governing this choice may be chaotic - a second long surge of hunger might force you to go grab the taco now... but that is not a lack of determinism. It's just a lot of variance in how things are determined.

There is no real thing to even point to and call free will - what people point to when talking about it are always examples of deterministic events.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
... the pont of my comparison between a calculator an a human brane was for the purops of pontin out that reguardless of that vast diference... nether have free-will/free-choice.!!! ”

But you cannot conclude that as they have very a great difference OTHER THAN DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY. -

Humans have desires and beliefs, calculators don't.
Humans believe that one selection (the choice) is more likely than another to help achieve those desires.
What you are doing is much like concluding a bird can not fly because it is just a biological organism like an amoeba, only much more more advanced and complex. I.e. you are ignoring their main differences: birds have wings and amoebas don't and that humans have desires and calculators don't.

No... i dont conclud that humans do not have free will because they are just a biological organism like an amoeba, only much more more advanced and complex... i conclude that nether have free will dew to both are bound by an unbroken chane of cause an effect... an unless you can show how that causal chane is broken in such a way that permits uninfluenced choise... then free will can not esist.!!!

What makes a selection a choice is that it is made by an agent acting on the belief that that selection will help it achieve its desires.

No... such thangs as desire are irrelevent to whether or not free will esists... ie... wit or wit-out desire... no choise is free from influence... an agent actin on beleifs" is jus a mor complex influence than somone pushin a calculator key... but the result is
the sam... no free choise.!!!

PS
Have you read this thred... if not i suggest you do so... viewponts from people other than myself mite make the positon of free will bein an illusion mor clear to you.!!!

 

[Incompatibalist]

I am going to choose hard determinism. Doesn't make much sense to choose freewill. And here is my reasoning.

Everything in the universe acts/reacts according to universal law, or the laws of universe, or physics. For example, gravity. Now, my understanding of physics isn't such that I can say that with absolute confidence. But each particle reacts according to some physical law. Sure, maybe not all particles react according to gravity, that is to say some particles may not be affected by gravity. But even so, those particles which are unaffected by gravity STILL act in accordance with SOME law. We as humans are composed of these particles which act/react in accordance with some law. So what makes us think that our thoughts and actions remain unrestricted to physical law when we are composed of these predetermined particles?

Now all of science is based on logic. If we are to question a science which has been tested and tested over and over again and has always been proven true based on the standards of science.. then we must not question our science. But rather our reasoning or logic. And our logic will NEVER be questioned. For to question our reasoning, is to question everything else which we have concluded from our reasoning.

Now, I bring up logic because it's especially important in my decision to be a hard determinist. The principle which ultimately led to me believing this was that of consistency. And from consistency we have the law of causality. Everything that happens, has happened or will happen has a cause. And from causality we have determinism. That is to say determinism is a corollary of causality. To accept causality is to accept determinism. Everything is the result of prior states. This is how the universe works. We know that a wooden board will break with a certain amount of force applied to it, given the state of the board.

In any case. I have a question for those who believe in free will and determinism. How did it come to be that a deterministic universe came up with non-deterministic entities?
It makes not much sense. And also it is apparent that humans are deterministic. I myself am able to accurately predict how others will react... of course given their prior states.

Also, I've heard several erroneous arguments that... if you cannot predict a person yourself then it proves that free will exists. This is a really, really stupid position. From here I argue the primacy of existence. Which states that existence is independent of consciousness. That is to say that humans can only control reality in so far as their abilities allow them. Just because you think something to be true doesn't make it true.
Also another thing that bugs me. If you at first don't believe in hard determinism you must concede at the very least that you are ONLY in control insofar as genetics and psychology has allowed you. You cannot control that you were going to be born with the hair color that you have. You cannot control that you hurt when you touch something burning hot.

Sorry everything is scattered in this post.

Edit: Here is a good quote I have found. "Man is free to do what he wills but cannot will what he wills."

 

[Billy T]

To cluelusshusbund:

We may as well stop as we are at an impasse:

You state “choice” and free will do not exist because everything that happens is caused. {And I agree that everything has a cause, but for me that fact does prove non-existence of choice. I require some proof, not just your assertion of that.}
I state that even a self-caused selection* is a choice and free will in action if that selection is made by an agent in the belief that it will help it achieve its desires.

Our definitions of choice and free will obviously differ.

-------------
*I have a model of this agent being only an informational process (nothing material and thus not limited by physical laws) taking place in parietal brain. The agent is like a subroutine, in a larger computational process that is making a Real Time Simulation* of the external world, which the agent perceives and acts upon according to its wishes, desires and beliefs. I.e. this “self code” subroutine is “you” and it alone causes the selection made. “You” are not a physical body, following the laws of nature. “You” are following your evolved program code (and constantly refining it as you learn, but that fact does not enter upon this discussion).

We agree that most informational processes that make selections (E.g. your calculator display 4 after being stimulated by key sequence 2+2= is not making a choice.) I agree with that as the calculator is not an agent with desires or beliefs. In fact at the present stage of man technical progress no machine makes any choice as none are agents with desires and beliefs.

*For more about the RTS, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66
The RTS mainly is an alternative POV about how perception works, but the possibility that free will is not inconsistent with the laws of nature “falls out” as “you” are immaterial and thus not governed / restricted by those laws

 

[cluelusshusbund]

To cluelusshusbund:

We may as well stop as we are at an impasse:

You state “choice” and free will do not exist because everything that happens is caused. {And I agree that everything has a cause, but for me that fact does prove non-existence of choice. I require some proof, not just your assertion of that.}

You want proof from me of the non-existence of the thang (free will) that YOU clame exists... well i thank youv'e got it a bit bakwards as to who needs to show "proof".!!!

To be clear on my position on this particular issue... you agree that everything has a cause... an unless you can show how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for uninfluenced choise... then it is not logical that free will esists.!!!

We agree that most informational processes that make selections (E.g. your calculator display 4 after being stimulated by key sequence 2+2= is not making a choice.) I agree with that as the calculator is not an agent with desires or beliefs. In fact at the present stage of man technical progress no machine makes any choice as none are agents with desires and beliefs.

What you'r missin is... that desires an beleifs are jus anuther part of the causal chane of events (not seperate from it).!!!

You didnt answr... have you read this thred.???

 

[Billy T]

You want proof from me of the non-existence of the thang (free will) that YOU clame exists... well i thank youv'e got it a bit bakwards as to who needs to show "proof".!!!

No, not what I asked for. No one can prove the non-existence of anything (out side of mathematics) as the universe is mostly unexplored. For example unicorns may be pulling plows on some distant planet.

You made an assertion that if there is a causal chain, then free will can not exist -that is only your assertion and I wanted your assertion to be proved.

Your assertion was of the form: If A, then B. I want you to show that B follows from A. Show that "if selection is made by causal chain" (= "A") Then "choice cannot exist." (= "B") follows.

I think our impasse is caused by my POV that the self can and does make a choice if it, and it alone, makes the selection. You claim it can not if the self is a set of logical steps in a dynamic program.

... You didnt answr... have you read this thred.???

last two or three pages of it. If you think there is an agruement against my POV, tell the post number.

Speaking of not answering, you have yet to tell what would be a choice or correct my definition, which was:

A choice is made by an agent with desires and beliefs when that agent selects an alternative that it believes will aid in achieving its desires.

You simply assert that choice does not exist because everything has a cause. - Is product of an unbroken causal chain. Yet you also, in conflict with this, claim thing are not predestined.

{post 139 here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2646760&postcount=139}
I dont have beleifs that thangs are predetermined... but whenever posible... i put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor an that requires the use of logic.!!!

Do you not understand that if everything now happening was caused by prior happenings, that is an unbroken causal chain extending back to the big bang origin of the universe? (Yes you need to use logic, but don't here with these mutually contradictory positions.) When two statements mutually contradict each other, at least one of them is wrong. You can chose which of yours is wrong: "Choice does not exist" or "World is not predestined."

If you are tempted to remind me of quantum uncertainty, I note that it only produces chance or random events. Logic is not produced by chance. Where would the logic you say you use to "put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" come from if the causal chain is broken only by random chance events? I think you are making selections based on your beliefs that your CHOICES will aid your desires to be achieved.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

No, not what I asked for. No one can prove the non-existence of anything...

Thats my pont.!!!

For example unicorns may be pulling plows on some distant planet.

Yes... an if you clamed ther was such a thang as unicorns i coudnt prove ther wasnt... jus like you clame thers such a thang as free will... i cant prove ther ant... ie... if you make the clame that these thangs esist... the burdon of proof is on you... but you'r demandin that prove the non-existence of unicorns/free will.!!!

You agree that everthang has a cause... you jus dont except the implication of you'r own assertion which is... sinse ever event has a cause... each event is the cause of the nest event... ie... cause an effect (like a row of dominos fallin into each other) is an unboken chane of events an is self esplanitory... sinse you accept that everthang has a cause... yet can not understan that the notion of free will is an illogical position dew to ther bein an unbroken chane of events... i cant force you to make that connection... i can only show you the illogic of you'r position.!!!

You agree that everything has a cause... so to make you'r case that free will realy does esist... you need to show how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for free will to exist... otherwize its not logical that free will esists.!!!

I think our impasse is caused by my POV that the self can and does make a choice if it, and it alone, makes the selection. You claim it can not if the self is a set of logical steps in a dynamic program.

Is it you'r POV that the "self" is not subject to cause an effect.???

...you have yet to tell what would be a choice or correct my definition, which was:

A choice is made by an agent with desires and beliefs when that agent selects an alternative that it believes will aid in achieving its desires.

Is it you'r position that desires an beleifs are not part of the causal chane.???

"Choise" is jus a word to denote selection... i dont see any evidence that choice (free-choice) exists.!!!

You simply assert that choice does not exist because everything has a cause. - Is product of an unbroken causal chain. Yet you also, in conflict with this, claim thing are not predestined.
“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
{post 139 here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2646760&postcount=139}

"I dont have beleifs that thangs are predetermined... but whenever posible... i put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor an that requires the use of logic.!!! ”

Do you not understand that if everything now happening was caused by prior happenings, that is an unbroken causal chain extending back to the big bang origin of the universe?

Well yes i do... i thank its you who doesnt understan it

But thanks... i ment to use the term predestined (insted of predetermined) an i corected that post.!!!

 

[tablariddim]

The animals can choose? :scratchin:

If you have ever owned a pet, you would know that animals can choose and do.