Determinism and free will .

[Sarkus]

I'll grant you it's the rational course, to be sure.
However, that doesn't mean that we need say it applies exclusively. Other factors may play a role.

And when they are shown to play a role then the rational position will be that it doesn't apply exclusively. But until then...

Nor has anything yet been shown to be either caused or determined....Thus, non sequitur.

You posted, I responded... causation demonstrated.

Note: probability.
It is this probability that allows choice.
...
Ah, well then, I disagree with your definition of both choice and free will.

To me, all these terms imply is that an opportunity exists, whereby one can affect the probabilistic outcome.

To me probability does not imply choice. A probability function can strictly only exist if the output is randomly generated... in that as the number of times the action is carried out approaches infinity, the output tends to the probability function.
If you introduce "choice" then there is no probability - there is only whatever is chosen - unless you accept that the choice is random within the probability function.

You've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that "not necessary" equals "choice without cause". Choice is always 'caused' (as we've definied it herein... ??), but the result of any choice is not necessarily determined. The application of causality in its deterministic flavour is only 'enforced' within certain scenarios, in particular, those that are probabilistically restricted. In other words, when no interfering power comes into play. Sometimes, agents who have access to the probabilities involved can, and do interfere with the causal chain. Yes, this still means that causality plays out, but not in its 'original' deterministic way.

Not "strictly" determined, I'd agree.[/quote]Several points: can you name a scenario that is not "probabilistically restricted"?
Can you name an agent that has access to the probabilities involved... at the micro level?
And I remind you that I am not advocating "strict" determinism.

Further, I do not consider any probability function to have been set prior to all the causes being in place. You seem to be advocating that there is a probability function set up and then the ability to influence this probability function. To me that influence is already taken into account when the probability function is created. There can be no time between the cause and effect with which to make such influences.

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that purported causation is not remotely understood. Given that, it would be foolish to assume that it works in exactly the way we commonly ascribe to it.

Now, where have I heard that sort of argument before... "Well, we don't understand how everything works, so it would be foolish to discount Him...".

I agree with you entirely so far....

Woohoo!

But disagree with this.

Doh!

The choice was made by the agent to interfere.

But the agent is still bound by a causal chain, and the "choice" was merely a (random) probabilistic output of all the causal chains / influences culminating at that point.

But to assert this it to assert that the whole scenario could not have 'run' any other way. I fail to see how this doesn't mean you're a strict determinist...

To you "choice" seems to be the mere selection between various possibilities, even if that "choice" is random (albeit within the confines of a probability function).
And secondly, to assert what I did does NOT assert that it could not have 'run' any other way... I allow for random selection within the probability function... but that is not "choice".
To me "choice" is a (dare I say it) conscious act. It is something that is only applicable to the macro. And as such is, philosophically, an illusion - or at best a word used to describe a pattern of activity that displays certain properties etc.

And I do concede that if analysis of a cause is limited equally to the macro then "choice", "free-will" etc do exist (metaphorically speaking). But only because at some point in such an analysis we ask ourselves "so what caused X?" (where X is some few links back in the chain) and we can only say "don't know". This sense of free-will thus allows us to mask our lack of knowledge of the causes. And thankfully so. If we knew all the causes, right down to the initiating randomness, I have a hunch we would not be conscious / self-aware. (That might be why a rock is not conscious - as it knows exactly what it is and how it works. ;D)

No, I wasn't referring to that, but rather, using the Latin literally: "after the fact". In other words, cause/effect X is (as you say) "still part of the causal chain", but only after it has manifest itself as such (which is to say, certainly not before..).

Sure - and I can not see how this can not be so, as we (as humans) can only ever look at such things after the event. If we try to identify the causes up to now, the moment has already passed. And any attempt at prediction becomes increasingly difficult the smaller scale you get.

OK, I agree with all of this, and recognize your allegiance to the latter. However, it seems to me that you're adding something on to the latter: some sense of inexorability, of 'fate'. This is odd because, as you note above, non-strict determinism would logically allow for one to 're-run' part of a chain of events and end up with a different result.

I'd like to know where you're getting this notion of me adding some sniff of "fate" into the equation. Chaos theory alone should discount such tosh!

See, I think it does allow for it.
Specifically, by a manipulation of the probability function noted above.

And I see no possibility for manipulation of something that can not be set until the precise moment before the effect.

At a macro level - no disagreement in that what people call "free-will" and "choice" certainly allow for that, due to the possible time between a cause and effect, not to mention the greater accuracy with which one can foresee macro probabilities and can thus seemingly manipulate them. But while these are practical usages of the term, philosophically I feel that what they actually stand for are mere illusions of what is going on.

I imagine that were we in a pub discussing this over pints, we'd have settled and agreed on all this...lol

Or been kicked out for being too rowdy!

In any case, with respect to the 'human element' I've introduced, I suspect that it's of vital importance here

Whereas I suspect not.

...our recognition (perception??) of probabilities enables us to manipulate them (I'm thinking here of John Nash...).

At the illusory macro level, yes - but we can no more manipulate the state our observations collapse a wavefunction to than we can tell a specific atom of radioactive material to decay on command.

The human place within this material universe then is indeed a 'special' one (I'm not granting other creatures with 'probabilistic recognition', though not excluding it either.): our ability to imagine allows us to be creative [yes, I again realize I'm sounding spiritual.. ].

I'm sorry... you're breaking up... Glaucon? Can you hear me? Glaucon?... [thumps radio]... Glaucon? Repeat last transmission... over?
Nope - I think we lost him.

 

[glaucon]

And when they are shown to play a role then the rational position will be that it doesn't apply exclusively. But until then...

But until then it's the best approach, but neither ideal, nor perfect.

You posted, I responded... causation demonstrated.

But not determined...

To me probability does not imply choice. A probability function can strictly only exist if the output is randomly generated...

I disagree.
However, even if one granted that...

- unless you accept that the choice is random within the probability function.

Yes! This is what I have been saying. I wholeheartedly agree.

whew.

Several points: can you name a scenario that is not "probabilistically restricted"?

As I mentioned, any where an agent interferes..

Can you name an agent that has access to the probabilities involved... at the micro level?

I cannot. However, I don't believe I need do so.

Again, I don't believe (as you do..) that the micro level behaviour of a system directly and necessarily determines the outcome.

There can be no time between the cause and effect with which to make such influences.

Or, as Hume would remind us, there is no such differentiation possible at all.
Thus, the temporal element doesn't matter....

Now, where have I heard that sort of argument before... "Well, we don't understand how everything works, so it would be foolish to discount Him...".

lol

Nice.

I don't believe the two situations to be metaphorically equivalent.
Still, good eye...

But the agent is still bound by a causal chain, and the "choice" was merely a (random) probabilistic output of all the causal chains / influences culminating at that point.

Again then, you're back to strict determinism: "bound" and "culminating" are problematic here.

To you "choice" seems to be the mere selection between various possibilities, even if that "choice" is random (albeit within the confines of a probability function).

Precisely!!

And secondly, to assert what I did does NOT assert that it could not have 'run' any other way... I allow for random selection within the probability function... but that is not "choice".

It is if it appears to be such....

To me "choice" is a (dare I say it) conscious act. It is something that is only applicable to the macro. And as such is, philosophically, an illusion - or at best a word used to describe a pattern of activity that displays certain properties etc.

I agree.

See above.

And I do concede that if analysis of a cause is limited equally to the macro then "choice", "free-will" etc do exist (metaphorically speaking). But only because at some point in such an analysis we ask ourselves "so what caused X?" (where X is some few links back in the chain) and we can only say "don't know". This sense of free-will thus allows us to mask our lack of knowledge of the causes. And thankfully so. If we knew all the causes, right down to the initiating randomness, I have a hunch we would not be conscious / self-aware. (That might be why a rock is not conscious - as it knows exactly what it is and how it works. ;D)

Right. Exactly.


OK.. I think we understand each other now.

Sure - and I can not see how this can not be so, as we (as humans) can only ever look at such things after the event. If we try to identify the causes up to now, the moment has already passed. And any attempt at prediction becomes increasingly difficult the smaller scale you get.

Yup.

I'd like to know where you're getting this notion of me adding some sniff of "fate" into the equation. Chaos theory alone should discount such tosh!

lol

Even the chaoticians seem to suspect that there's really no such thing as a truly chaotic system....

At a macro level - no disagreement in that what people call "free-will" and "choice" certainly allow for that, due to the possible time between a cause and effect, not to mention the greater accuracy with which one can foresee macro probabilities and can thus seemingly manipulate them. But while these are practical usages of the term, philosophically I feel that what they actually stand for are mere illusions of what is going on.

Right. But what I'm saying is: this 'illusion' is all there is to "choice".


Coupled with the appearance of causation, we ascribe to ourselves the power of election.
At no point did I claim that this is what's 'really'(sic) going on. Now, of course, the vast majority of people do actually think that they know exactly what's 'really' going on... but that's another discussion entirely..... (poor silly bastards..)

At the illusory macro level, yes - but we can no more manipulate the state our observations collapse a wavefunction to than we can tell a specific atom of radioactive material to decay on command.

Right.
But I think it's still important precisely because of this (mis-)apprehension.

As a side note, there's also the problematic assumption you're making with respect to this 'really going on' notion. Of course, we'd be going offtopic by bringing up that beaten horse...

I'm sorry... you're breaking up... Glaucon? Can you hear me? Glaucon?... [thumps radio]... Glaucon? Repeat last transmission... over?
Nope - I think we lost him.

lol

Yeah, yeah. I'm waxing mystical these days....

lol

 

[Sarkus]

It seems we are gravitating to some... agreement??

But not determined...

I assure you I was determined to reply (ho ho ho!)

I'll get my coat.

Yes! This is what I have been saying. I wholeheartedly agree.

So you can "choose" which face a die lands on when rolled? Not sure I could accept "choice" to include such (albeit apparent) randomness.

Again then, you're back to strict determinism: "bound" and "culminating" are problematic here.

Why? If one accepts an assumption (e.g. cause and effect) then is it not valid to say that one is bound by that assumption?
Take the causal chain of where cause X leads to effect Y which is cause for Z.
Effect Y and Z are both random "choices" (to use your strange language) within their respective probability functions. This is therefore not strict determinism yet follows cause/effect, and X, Y, and Z (irrespective of what they end up being) are "bound" to the causal chain.
As for the term "culminating" - this is to suggest that each cause is actually the totallity of influence. It says nothing of the resulting "effect".

It is if it appears to be such....

Said the one who still believes in magic?

Even the chaoticians seem to suspect that there's really no such thing as a truly chaotic system....

Never really got too far into the realm of chaos, other than the basic susceptibility of a system to changes in starting conditions etc.

Right. But what I'm saying is: this 'illusion' is all there is to "choice".
Coupled with the appearance of causation, we ascribe to ourselves the power of election.
At no point did I claim that this is what's 'really'(sic) going on.

And lo, the sky did clear and the sun did shine.
And all was well with the world.


Time for bed, said Zebedee.

 

[NMSquirrel]

So you can "choose" which face a die lands on when rolled? Not sure I could accept "choice" to include such (albeit apparent) randomness.

this comment made me think about, we role the dice, we choose which path to go down..the paths that were made are set in stone IE there are only a limited number of paths we can go down..

in that respect choices can be predetermined only when looking at the whole game board..only we as humans cannot see the whole board..

 

[Quantum Quack]

this comment made me think about, we role the dice, we choose which path to go down..the paths that were made are set in stone IE there are only a limited number of paths we can go down..

in that respect choices can be predetermined only when looking at the whole game board..only we as humans cannot see the whole board..

But this is where the entire current debate between Sarkus and Glaucon fails IMO.
You may very well choose to roll the "metaphorical dice" but you can also choose to throw the result in the bin any time you like.
You may also find the path the die has inspired may be blocked and your Freedom of choice although intact has now been rendered impotent due to frustration.
Frustration of outcome in no way diminishes the ability to freely choose.

So the arguement that Free will is in someway "determined" by external events is potentially falacious and invalid.
Sure external events influence your decisions but in no way do they make them for you. You still have to decide to either continue as previously planned or throw the plan out the window, or come up with a new one.

Internal events such as conditioning are all subject to self management as well. The degree of freedom one feels is dependant on that conditioning but this again does not invalidate the Freedom of choice other than the self-oppression one has chosen to live under.
I fail to see how causation has been logically proven to diminish Free will other than restrict our perception of choice rather than the reality of our alternatives.
Just because a die is thrown means jack sh*t as you can always change your mind and do nothing instead. [regarding the die outcome] or go watch TV instead...etc

 

[Quantum Quack]

in that respect choices can be predetermined only when looking at the whole game board..only we as humans cannot see the whole board..

is this not more an issue of "quality" of choices made rather than the freedom to choose?
"To choose or not to choose? That is the question and answer.....

 

[NMSquirrel]

But this is where the entire current debate between Sarkas and Glaucon fails IMO.
You may very well choose to roll the "metaphorical dice" but you can also choose to throw the result in the bin any time you like.
You may also find the path the die has inspired may be blocked and your Freedom of choice although intact has now been rendered impotent due to frustration.
Frustration of outcome in no way diminishes the ability to freely choose.

So the arguement that Free will is in someway "determined" by external events is potentially falacious and invalid.
Sure external events influence your decisions but in no way do they make them for you. You still have to decide to either continue as previously planned or throw the plan out the window, or come up with a new one.

Internal events such as conditioning are all subject to self management as well. The degree of freedom one feels is dependant on that conditioning but this again does not invalidate the Freedom of choice other than the self-oppression one has chosen to live under.
I fail to see how causation has been logically proven to diminish Free will other than restrict our perception of choice rather than the reality of our alternatives.
Just because a die is thrown means jack sh*t as you can always change your mind and do nothing instead. [regarding the die outcome] or go watch TV instead...etc

this reminds me..

there have been times in my life that i have dragged me feet when it comes to making a choice..most of the times when that has happened the choice was made for me...
IOW..if you don't make a choice,sometimes you won't have a choice..

 

[Quantum Quack]

this reminds me..

there have been times in my life that i have dragged me feet when it comes to making a choice..most of the times when that has happened the choice was made for me...
IOW..if you don't make a choice,sometimes you won't have a choice..

self disempowerment hey?
The world is a competitivie place no doubt about it... if you want to slack off there are many others ready to take your place so to speak...
However I might add, you can always still make the choice but in this case it is rendered impotent... self delusion is a choice we make alot of the time [ vid games, movies, fantasy, religion, etc etc...]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Example:
Lets say you need to get somewhere and you have 4 methods of transport available.
1] car
2] train
3] bus
4] walk
You freely choose to catch the 9 am train.
You catch a 8.30am bus for the station and after arriving nearby walk to the metro train ticket office.
You are told the train has been cancelled because some nutter decided to blow up the rails.
It was only then you remembered a choice you forgot about : "Do nothing and stay at home"

Was you Freedom of choice [re: 4 methods of transport] diminished or was only the outcome frustrated?

So you chose a method that turned out to be a mistake...Freewill in action yes?
another:
"Every one has the freedom and the fundamental human right to break any law they choose to break." ~ and suffer the consequences for doing so...

 

[Sarkus]

But this is where the entire current debate between Sarkus and Glaucon fails IMO.
You may very well choose to roll the "metaphorical dice" but you can also choose to throw the result in the bin any time you like.

But the "choice" to throw the result in the bin is similarly caused - and examine those causes in more and more detail and all you seem to see is randomness within the confines of a probability function etc. Glaucon calls this random selection "choice" whereas I do not, but either way it only seems to have the appearance of free-will on a macro scale.

So the arguement that Free will is in someway "determined" by external events is potentially falacious and invalid. Sure external events influence your decisions but in no way do they make them for you. You still have to decide to either continue as previously planned or throw the plan out the window, or come up with a new one.

Your decisions would be made by every influence that gives rise to the thought... both internal and external.

I fail to see how causation has been logically proven to diminish Free will other than restrict our perception of choice rather than the reality of our alternatives.

I don't think the intention was to diminish "free-will" (or what I would consider to be the illusion of free-will). Even if one accepts it as illusory, one is still caught up in it - and possibly necessarily so. At which point it is just a question of semantics as to whether one considers the illusion to be "free-will" or whether it is considered an "illusion of freewill". (Which I think was/is a cause of the discussion between Glaucon and I).

Just because a die is thrown means jack sh*t as you can always change your mind and do nothing instead. [regarding the die outcome] or go watch TV instead...etc

All you are doing is demonstrating "free-will" / "illusion of free-will" in action. It speaks nothing for whether it is an illusion or not.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your decisions would be made by every influence that gives rise to the thought... both internal and external.

The thing even if as you say is true we still have the ability to be irrational if we choose to be so. We have the ability to ignore our own thoughts any time we choose to do so.
We have the ability to act entirely arbitarilly simply because for no other reason "we can"
To me this indicates a very strong case for the reality not illusion, of freewill irrespective of outcomes or causation. We can ignore causation and we can ignore effect....
Years ago here at Sciforums a poster put up a gedanken where by we had a horse in a stable and two identically tempting food sources.
Imagine a situation where by you have two apparently identical alternatives.

The horse may vey well starve to death because it can not choose either alternative because they are identical. [ a hung horse so to speak ]
A human on the other hand can simply choose arbitarilly either alternative to, if anything, just to break the impasse or choose to starve to death. It requires no reason nor expectation of success we simply can toss our own "mental" coin and go for it... [ one of the main difference between a computer and the human mind is we can handle hung situations much better due to our abiity to drop the programming and act without logic or reason.]
Does this support the notion that freewill is more than an illusion?
I think it does.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But the "choice" to throw the result in the bin is similarly caused - and examine those causes in more and more detail and all you seem to see is randomness within the confines of a probability function etc. Glaucon calls this random selection "choice" whereas I do not, but either way it only seems to have the appearance of free-will on a macro scale.

you must try a different approach to the old word association game.
You know..think of a word associated with such and such...
try doing a word dis-association game.
I used it as therapy years ago when I realised that it helped in removing patterns in my thinking.
pick a word that is as far removed in association to the word given...

we are capable of being random and that is why we can say we have free will...
afterall "What is the meaning of life?" answer = 55 [not 42]

afterall we know how inferior our random number generators are and how do we know this....if not because we are masters at it ourselves.IMO
any ways...just a few thoughts to toss around...

 

[Emil]

What I consider a choice?
Throw a coin in the air and choose,head or tail?
In some cases, we can not find the result and then we are forced to choose between possible alternatives.

I am also totally agree with the following:

I read just the other day an excellent quote. "We believe we have free will because we have no other choice."

 

[Gustav]

Does this support the notion that freewill is more than an illusion?
I think it does.

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

we still have the ability to be irrational if we choose to be so

true. despite clinging to primitive superstitions like destiny and gods divine plan clothed in scientific jargon such as causation, we all know we can leave a idyllic life and walk off a cliff anytime we choose. the option is there. its just that some lack the faculty of introspection to recognize and acknowledge it

 

[M00se1989]

Having precise numbers for something uncertain should only present more uncertainty at the roulette table...

Yes the problem is choice. But the issue is a spinning ball. If you were to calculate exactly how the ball spins before it stopped, I wonder if they would still allow you to place any bets.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Having precise numbers for something uncertain should only present more uncertainty at the roulette table...

Yes the problem is choice. But the issue is a spinning ball. If you were to calculate exactly how the ball spins before it stopped, I wonder if they would still allow you to place any bets.

I like this for reasons beyond this threads topic....nice one!
"the more you attempt to define the moment the more undefined it becomes due to an increased knowledge/awareness of probabilities expanding towards infinity"

 

[Quantum Quack]

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



true. despite clinging to primitive superstitions like destiny and gods divine plan clothed in scientific jargon such as causation, we all know we can leave a idyllic life and walk off a cliff anytime we choose. the option is there. its just that some lack the faculty of introspection to recognize and acknowledge it

I have often held to the notion, as funnilly enough most women have known for ages...that it is the power of NO that grants you freedom...whether that NO is rational [if respected] or irrational [if it isn't], the ability to say NO, for example, to life grants one the ability to say yes to it. [ IMO this is an exercise of our inherant freewill ]

 

[Gustav]

free won't

 

[Quantum Quack]

free won't

maybe!?

 

[M00se1989]

Yes or no, red or black. There is always a chance to land on zero, but placing a bet on that is subconscious suicide. Still it is the only option that is inherently unobvious... Option C the miss-understood yet infinite number you never even see.