Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I think this kernel of free will that we seem to have is understood better by addressing it as free choice.
Determinism and free will .
- Thread starter Emil
- Start date
I think this kernel of free will that we seem to have is understood better by addressing it as free choice.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I feel the need to clarify that determinism and lack of freedom are not one and the same. When asked about an action taken by one one will say they didn't feel coerced or forced to do what they did. If one is saying that this action is influenced by the universe somehow through lack of freedom that doesn't make sense, so it should suffice to say that the universe doesn't seem to be deterministic through causality even though we lack freedom.
Last edited:
I'll give you an example.
Chicken Coop Boy.
A child is kept by his cruel stepfather in the backyard chicken coop.
Until he is rescued, he grows up living only with chickens.
I would say that that child is going to start behaving very much like a chicken.
But he can still decide which grain to peck at.
Last edited:
Would it be possible to paraphrase that?
Here's a convoluted question:
If we do have freedom of choice, are we free to decide that we have choice?
If instead we don't have any choices, and everything is determined (by a chain of causality going back beyond our individual birth, the evolution of primates, the birth of the solar system, etc) then if we decide we have free will despite causality, does that free us from determinism, because we know we really can't decide (i.e. the choice is made for us)?
In other words, deciding that free will exists is an exercise of that freedom of choice, even if we don't have it? So is the appearance of free will and choice just something that gets determined for us, regardless of whether we decide that we do or don't have the choice?
Which would you choose, and why?
/cackle
If we do have freedom of choice, are we free to decide that we have choice?
If instead we don't have any choices, and everything is determined (by a chain of causality going back beyond our individual birth, the evolution of primates, the birth of the solar system, etc) then if we decide we have free will despite causality, does that free us from determinism, because we know we really can't decide (i.e. the choice is made for us)?
In other words, deciding that free will exists is an exercise of that freedom of choice, even if we don't have it? So is the appearance of free will and choice just something that gets determined for us, regardless of whether we decide that we do or don't have the choice?
Which would you choose, and why?
/cackle
Consciousness is a necessary precondition for free will.
If our actions are determined then consciousness is just an unnecessary side product of our mental capacity.
There is no contradiction in holding that view, but I find it unsatisfying.
If our actions are determined then consciousness is just an unnecessary side product of our mental capacity.
There is no contradiction in holding that view, but I find it unsatisfying.
The animals can choose? :scratchin:
This sums up how I see consciousness, actually.
I think the consensus is that we live in a deterministic universe, but we can't tell that it is.
We can't predict behaviour very well, for instance, unless it's the "behaviour" of inanimate objects, and there is a built-in uncertainty. We can only predict anything within a certain time interval because of the chaotic nature of physical processes.
So even though the universe is deterministic, we can never know what is determined with sufficient accuracy, so instead, because of unpredictability and chaos, we (choose to) believe there is choice.
p.s. I read something about neurological studies that found chaos is a fundamental part of consciousness. Our brains work chaotically, and perhaps this is what determines our sense of freedom of choice. We have brains that exhibit chaotic patterns, from which order arises, but we can't tell how this happens subjectively--hence "freedom" of thought.
We can't predict behaviour very well, for instance, unless it's the "behaviour" of inanimate objects, and there is a built-in uncertainty. We can only predict anything within a certain time interval because of the chaotic nature of physical processes.
So even though the universe is deterministic, we can never know what is determined with sufficient accuracy, so instead, because of unpredictability and chaos, we (choose to) believe there is choice.
p.s. I read something about neurological studies that found chaos is a fundamental part of consciousness. Our brains work chaotically, and perhaps this is what determines our sense of freedom of choice. We have brains that exhibit chaotic patterns, from which order arises, but we can't tell how this happens subjectively--hence "freedom" of thought.
Last edited:
Well said.
HELICOPTER
Written above is a word.
While the edit command is still available, I can change that word, change the size of that word, its position etc.
Will I do that?
And if I do it, what changes will I make?
Will I change it more than once?
I don't know, because I haven't made a decision on the matter.
You certainly don't know.
How then can what I do in this small matter be determined?
Written above is a word.
While the edit command is still available, I can change that word, change the size of that word, its position etc.
Will I do that?
And if I do it, what changes will I make?
Will I change it more than once?
I don't know, because I haven't made a decision on the matter.
You certainly don't know.
How then can what I do in this small matter be determined?
At the macro level everything seems indetermined... we have what we consider to be "choice": you might or might not edit the word "HELICOPTER".
But there is small matter of "Cause and effect".
If we assume that cause and effect holds, then each effect is the result of a cause, and each effect is itself a cause for the next effect, and we have an unbroken chain of cause and effect since time began.
What people consider to be a "choice" is the observing of multiple possible branches from a cause and selecting one of them. But for this "choice" to be "free" requires an influencing factor, and most importantly for this influencing factor to be uncaused.
But since we have assumed that all effects are caused, this influencing factor must also be caused. And all we are therefore left with is the long chain of cause/effect.
i.e. either there is no such thing as an uncaused influencing factor and thus no such thing as "choice", or the assumption of cause and effect as given above is not valid.
In my opinion, what you consider to be a "choice" is merely your brain analysing the various inputs of your senses and memory and creating an output - all in accordance with cause and effect.
One of the analysis performed is a prediction of possible macro-level effects, and the brain builds these predictions into the analysis... on a feedback loop for want of a better analogy... but all of this still follows cause/effect - at the micro level.
Computers make choices all the time. They recieve inputs, they analyse, they give output. The only difference, in my opinion, is the complexity of the input and the complexity of the analysis.
However, if one introduces randomness into the analysis - and QM suggests that outputs are not strictly determined but follow a probability function - this still leaves no room for "free-will" or an uncaused influence... it merely introduces elements of randomness into such things.
So what we see as "choice" and "freewill" is a fairly pervasive and perfect illusion, one that we are all caught by and accept as practical reality, even if we also accept it, intellectually, as an illusion.
But there is small matter of "Cause and effect".
If we assume that cause and effect holds, then each effect is the result of a cause, and each effect is itself a cause for the next effect, and we have an unbroken chain of cause and effect since time began.
What people consider to be a "choice" is the observing of multiple possible branches from a cause and selecting one of them. But for this "choice" to be "free" requires an influencing factor, and most importantly for this influencing factor to be uncaused.
But since we have assumed that all effects are caused, this influencing factor must also be caused. And all we are therefore left with is the long chain of cause/effect.
i.e. either there is no such thing as an uncaused influencing factor and thus no such thing as "choice", or the assumption of cause and effect as given above is not valid.
In my opinion, what you consider to be a "choice" is merely your brain analysing the various inputs of your senses and memory and creating an output - all in accordance with cause and effect.
One of the analysis performed is a prediction of possible macro-level effects, and the brain builds these predictions into the analysis... on a feedback loop for want of a better analogy... but all of this still follows cause/effect - at the micro level.
Computers make choices all the time. They recieve inputs, they analyse, they give output. The only difference, in my opinion, is the complexity of the input and the complexity of the analysis.
However, if one introduces randomness into the analysis - and QM suggests that outputs are not strictly determined but follow a probability function - this still leaves no room for "free-will" or an uncaused influence... it merely introduces elements of randomness into such things.
So what we see as "choice" and "freewill" is a fairly pervasive and perfect illusion, one that we are all caught by and accept as practical reality, even if we also accept it, intellectually, as an illusion.
I think I have thought of a good argument against material determinism.
It is this.
What if I decide to make a decision based upon the outcome of another event which is unrelated to the first?
Say that I base whether I go out this evening on whether the favourite wins the 2.30 at Epsom.
An event which results in an action can only be said to have caused that action if it is necessarily connected.
It is this.
What if I decide to make a decision based upon the outcome of another event which is unrelated to the first?
Say that I base whether I go out this evening on whether the favourite wins the 2.30 at Epsom.
An event which results in an action can only be said to have caused that action if it is necessarily connected.
And you don't see how you using the output of one event to determine the output of another event provides that very connection?
What made you use such an input (the favourite winning) would be due to some other cause/effect chain.
But for one event to be said to have caused another, there must be a necessary connection. That doesn't exist in this case.
One event (horse not winning) did cause the other (you not going out) because YOU provided the necessary connection of basing the effect (going out or not) on the cause (horse winning or not).
The necessary connection is YOU - and whatever caused you to make the linkage between the horse race and your evening plans.
The necessary connection is YOU - and whatever caused you to make the linkage between the horse race and your evening plans.
Well, the other factor for traditional causation is contiguousness.
If you are going to provide a special case for human beings, and just human beings, where one event can cause another at a distance, without being necessarily connected, I must protest.
This would be paranormal activity.
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that we have a tiny amount of free will?
Or alternatively, full free will, which is almost entirely moderated by our experiences fears and desires.
If you are going to provide a special case for human beings, and just human beings, where one event can cause another at a distance, without being necessarily connected, I must protest.
This would be paranormal activity.
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that we have a tiny amount of free will?
Or alternatively, full free will, which is almost entirely moderated by our experiences fears and desires.
Last edited:
They are NOT at a distance... they ARE connected with regarded how they effect you. They are brought together through your observation of the result of the race. You don't have to be there... you merely have to observe the result - whether that is over the radio, on the news, on the internet.
Once you have decided to base your evening activity on the result of an earlier race then there is a cause/effect link between the race being run and you going out or not:
The race causes the result causes the reporting of the result causes your observation of the result causes you to go out (or not) that evening.
Had any part of that chain been broken (e.g. the race was not run, or the result not reported) then the race could not have effected your evening plans (within the limitations of the example).
This is all macro level cause/effect - what to speak of the micro level.
The same way that advanced technology might seem like magic, perhaps.
No. At best I would suggest that "free-will" is a term used to describe the lack of conscious knowledge of ALL the causes of an action.
So what do you thank consciousness is.???
Edit:::
I dont know of any evidence that "free-will" esists... an i dont have a prollem wit a deterministic universe.!!!
Last edited: