Free Will vs Determinism

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are now saying that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will. The point is that even a decision made "freely" must be caused; therefore determined by your experience, learning, motivation (internally) and externally by the situation.

Just because an event has causes, does not make it determined in an absolute sense, that event may have been the result of causes plus a free will decision, and is therefore a free will decision.

Simply no.
We are not apart from the laws of physics and must obey the laws of cause and effect.
I'll ask you again - how do you make a decision?

[thedoc]

You are now saying that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will. The point is that even a decision made "freely" must be caused; therefore determined by your experience, learning, motivation (internally) and externally by the situation.

Just because an event has causes, does not make it determined in an absolute sense, that event may have been the result of causes plus a free will decision, and is therefore a free will decision.

Simply no.
We are not apart from the laws of physics and must obey the laws of cause and effect.
I'll ask you again - how do you make a decision?

Usually my decisions are based on the influences that I experience, but sometimes I make my own choice based on my preferences, which is my free will in action.

BTW, I've read the arguments of hard determinists before, but I don't agree with them that every influence makes a decision determined, some influences are compatible with free will.

[Immanuel Can]

thedoc:

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Hobbes and the rest of the (alleged) Determinists think they can "change your mind" by arguing with you, even though they profess that the state of your mind can only be a product of previous forces, and not of your own volition -- or, for that matter, of theirs: for just like you, they too must be nothing but the sum of the previous forces acting on them.

Nobody has volitional ability to "change their mind" they have to say. Que sera, sera. That's it. So what are they trying to "sway"?

Why be caught arguing for something that's supposedly "inevitable" anyway?

[thedoc]

thedoc:

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Hobbes and the rest of the (alleged) Determinists think they can "change your mind" by arguing with you, even though they profess that the state of your mind can only be a product of previous forces, and not of your own volition -- or, for that matter, of theirs: for just like you, they too must be nothing but the sum of the previous forces acting on them.

Nobody has volitional ability to "change their mind" they have to say. Que sera, sera. That's it. So what are they trying to "sway"?

Why be caught arguing for something that's supposedly "inevitable" anyway?

I agree, so that is why I have, of my own volition, decided to discontinue my exchange with HC.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Hobbes and the rest of the (alleged) Determinists think they can "change your mind" by arguing with you, even though they profess that the state of your mind can only be a product of previous forces, and not of your own volition -- or, for that matter, of theirs: for just like you, they too must be nothing but the sum of the previous forces acting on them.

That's a good objection. I can answer it.

It's true Doc cannot avoid "all the previous forces acting on" him however he can get a clearer view of "all the previous forces acting on "him and so enlarge his choice. Doc can also improve his critical ability so that his judgements are more focused. Doc might also increase his knowledge base which will also give him a better chance of making a good choice. I am not accusing The Doc of reacting to raw emotions as we all suffer from raw emotions unless we are emotionally flat; knowledge and good judgement includes also self knowledge and so we within the constraints of " all the previous forces acting on" us we can be a little more free of them.

I don't know The Doc of course and the above could be true of anyone who is capable of learning from experience.

[thedoc]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Hobbes and the rest of the (alleged) Determinists think they can "change your mind" by arguing with you, even though they profess that the state of your mind can only be a product of previous forces, and not of your own volition -- or, for that matter, of theirs: for just like you, they too must be nothing but the sum of the previous forces acting on them.

That's a good objection. I can answer it.

It's true Doc cannot avoid "all the previous forces acting on" him however he can get a clearer view of "all the previous forces acting on "him and so enlarge his choice. Doc can also improve his critical ability so that his judgements are more focused. Doc might also increase his knowledge base which will also give him a better chance of making a good choice. I am not accusing The Doc of reacting to raw emotions as we all suffer from raw emotions unless we are emotionally flat; knowledge and good judgement includes also self knowledge and so we within the constraints of " all the previous forces acting on" us we can be a little more free of them.

I don't know The Doc of course and the above could be true of anyone who is capable of learning from experience.

I believe that you have stated that you do not believe in free will, so does that mean that past experiences, that we learn from, form part of the influence that determines our course of action?

[Conde Lucanor]

Free will thinkers are typically conservatives that believe we have the power to make our own choices, and therefor place blame when a negative choice is made. They refute the idea of determinism assuming there'd be no personal responsibility taken in our actions if it were true.

People that believe in determinism are typically liberals who believe that individuals are a product of their inborn traits and the environment, and if society is to change, we'd have to change the environment that shapes the brain as it develops. They refute free will assuming the concept creates blame and hatred.

There's a mix and confusion here between what is and what ought to be. The truth or lack of truth of determinism cannot depend on whether people won't take responsability in their actions, or in the case of free will, because of making people guilty. Actually, a given stance on determinism is what will render an attribution of responsability as desirable or not. In other words, first you have to conclude that an action must be attributed to a person's free choice, and then you can arrive to the opinion that people should take responsability for their choices.

Secondly, the belief that individuals are a product of their inborn traits and the environment does not necessarily entail the type of determinism that will cancel free will. Those individuals could still make free choices. And even more, they could be determined to be autonomous agents that cannot escape their freedom to choose.

Third, the stance on determinism, indeterminism or free will, has very little to do with being liberal or conservative. Theological determinism, for example, is more likely to be found in the conservative side. Sartre, who is hardly confused with a conservative, based his existential humanism on free will.

Last, the relation between free will and determinism is not that of a direct opposition, as it seems to be implied. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, not free will. The last one implies conscious agents, whereas the other concepts just explain the relation between events. Of course, ultimately, events where agency takes part, can be explained in terms of determinism or indeterminism, thus being pertinent to the concept of free will, but you can discuss determinism and indeterminism without conscious agents being part of the picture, let's say in a scenario like the primeval, lifeless Earth.

For example.. Take a criminal. The free will thinker believes that the person chose to be a criminal and deserves punishment for choosing to become one. If things are to change we need harsher punishments etc.

Not necessarily. The free will thinker may believe that the person was moved by circumstances to a point of decision making, where those circumstances have a weight, but that the choice is ultimately made freely.

The deterministic thinker believes the person is merely a statistic. 1 out of every x amount of people will become criminals. It's not the persons fault that they became a statistic. If things are to change we need to change society to lower chances of people becoming criminals...

The deterministic thinker needs to review his/her beliefs, because a society is made of individuals. To change a society implies appealing to those individuals as agents of change, as people that make choices and transform the world. If they can do that, they can also decide not to be criminals.

My question is, how can someone actually believe in free will? If free will exists.. molecules and chemicals that drive our actions are being created in the brain from nothing, with no initial cause. It goes completely against the law of cause and effect. I don't see how the thought is logical.. Are you reading this post right now because of free will? or because the topic of free will vs determinism interests you and you circumstantially saw the title of this thread and clicked on it? How can anyone not agree that the latter is the case

That is assuming molecules and chemicals drive our actions. But what drives molecules and chemicals in our brains? External causes, evidently.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree, so that is why I have, of my own volition, decided to discontinue my exchange with HC.

Candidate for the best decision made this year.

If he complains, just say, "I had no choice...it was fated to be that way."

[Immanuel Can]

That's a good objection. I can answer it.

But why bother? If I was going to change my mind, I won't need you to do that; and if I wasn't, it won't do any good.

It's true Doc cannot avoid "all the previous forces acting on" him however he can get a clearer view of "all the previous forces acting on "him and so enlarge his choice.

His...what? He had no choice, remember? What was going to happen was going to happen. If a choice is not a real entity, a nothing, then you can't "enlarge" a nothing. It's still nothing.

Doc can also improve his critical ability so that his judgements are more focused. Doc might also increase his knowledge base which will also give him a better chance of making a good choice. I am not accusing The Doc of reacting to raw emotions as we all suffer from raw emotions unless we are emotionally flat; knowledge and good judgement includes also self knowledge and so we within the constraints of " all the previous forces acting on" us we can be a little more free of them.

But per Hobbes, we cannot be "free" of them, or even "more free" of them. They are the total story of what is happening when that phenomenon known as a "choice" appears. Thedoc's volition has no part in what happens, according to Determinism.

Anything less, and you're actually not a Determinist but some degree of Voluntarist. The mix of the preconditioned and the volitional is no problem for someone who believes in free will; but it's anathema to what a Determinist thinks is true.

I don't know The Doc of course and the above could be true of anyone who is capable of learning from experience.

In a Determinist world, we don't "learn," per se. Rather, we only respond to an additional set of forces predestined to be there, which are presented to us by a previous set of forces (i.e. another person), which were conditioned by a previous set of forces...and so on forever. But no process that goes on internal to us is anything more than an illusory "epiphenomenon," not a real thing at all. So there's no "learning" for anyone.

At least, so Determinism would have it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Just because an event has causes, does not make it determined in an absolute sense, that event may have been the result of causes plus a free will decision, and is therefore a free will decision.

Simply no.
We are not apart from the laws of physics and must obey the laws of cause and effect.
I'll ask you again - how do you make a decision?

Usually my decisions are based on the influences that I experience, but sometimes I make my own choice based on my preferences, which is my free will in action. .

You can call it free will if you like, but at any given moment your preferences are causes.

[Noax]

thedoc:

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Hobbes and the rest of the (alleged) Determinists think they can "change your mind" by arguing with you, even though they profess that the state of your mind can only be a product of previous forces, and not of your own volition -- or, for that matter, of theirs: for just like you, they too must be nothing but the sum of the previous forces acting on them.

Nobody has volitional ability to "change their mind" they have to say. Que sera, sera. That's it. So what are they trying to "sway"?

Why be caught arguing for something that's supposedly "inevitable" anyway?

How do you envision determinism that this post makes any sense at all? You seem to imply that under determinism, the outcome of some event (your reasoned opinion) must be the same even if the inputs (a well reasoned argument say) is experienced or not.

I know you have a strong proclivity to putting up strawman arguments to views you don't hold, but this is pretty ridiculous.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to imply that under determinism, the outcome of some event (your reasoned opinion) must be the same even if the inputs (a well reasoned argument say) is experienced or not.

Under Determinism, there's no "if not." Only one thing can ever happen, and only one thing ever does. What happens is the product of prior forces and causes, and those causes also were inevitable.

So if there is a "well-reasoned argument," then according to Determinism, that too only acts merely as a causal factor, and not as an appeal that is processed by the will of an agent who then makes a choice to believe it or not. The "inputs" are all inevitable, and so are the outcomes of those "inputs." Nobody's being persuaded, and no course is being chosen in place of another...rather, people are being caused to do whatever it is they end up doing. That's Determinism.

I think perhaps you're making the common mistake of thinking you're a Determinist, but then accidentally importing some volition you attribute to free agents at the end of your account, just to make an unliveable theory seem liveable.

You can do that, of course; there's no law against living inconsistently with your professed philosophy; but if you do, then it's not actually Determinism. In Determinism, there is NO volition; and any account that includes any of it at all rules out Determinism, for Determinism is categorical.

[Londoner]

I do not agree that anything, including our own actions, are really caused. To pick out something as the effect, and something else as its cause, is a distorted way of looking at the world.

Anything we pick out as a cause is not the only cause; if it was it would be identical to the effect. For it to be an effect it must involve something outside itself. For example, 'the moon' cannot be the cause of the tides, there must also be 'the sea', and the sea must consist of the sort of stuff which can respond to the moon...Also, the moon itself was caused, and so on. If we gave a full explanation of all the causes and all the effects, then we would have described everything in the universe; it would then amount to saying 'things are as they are, because that is the way they are'.

(Another way of saying the same thing is to say that there has only been one event, when the universe sprung into being with the Big Bang, so that everything is as it was determined at that moment. That it is only our limited point of view that makes us think things change, and thus think in terms of cause and effect.)

So a denial of free will on the grounds that our own actions are caused by other things can't be right. The same argument can then be extended to everything, so to say it about us does not only deny us free will, it says that there is no such thing as cause and effect, not for us and not for anything.

(I do not think 'free will' is about cause and effect in that sense. I think it arises from the human condition of having consciousness of its own being.)

[Belinda]

Put it this way, Immanuel Can: all beings and events are agents for change. You as a human being are a more powerful agent for change than a flea. Similarly a man who has acquired wisdom and knowledge is more of an agent for change than some learning- deficient man (all else being equal).

No event is not included in how the future is to be. All else being equal, events such as wise men influence future events more than fools influence future events.

It is possible to teach a fool to be a wise man, who will subsequently be more of an agent for changes than he was when he was a fool.

Human freedom is not all-or-nothing as is so-called "Free Will". A man can be more or less free and a man cannot be free unless he learns from experience.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You seem to imply that under determinism, the outcome of some event (your reasoned opinion) must be the same even if the inputs (a well reasoned argument say) is experienced or not.

Under Determinism, there's no "if not." Only one thing can ever happen, and only one thing ever does. What happens is the product of prior forces and causes, and those causes also were inevitable.

So if there is a "well-reasoned argument," then according to Determinism, that too only acts merely as a causal factor, and not as an appeal that is processed by the will of an agent who then makes a choice to believe it or not. The "inputs" are all inevitable, and so are the outcomes of those "inputs." Nobody's being persuaded, and no course is being chosen in place of another...rather, people are being caused to do whatever it is they end up doing. That's Determinism.l.

No - that is Fatalism.. it's a typical straw man against determinism.

This is the idiotic doctrine that events unfold regardless of human causality.
It's as stupid as the doctrine of free will that holds that humans can act regardless of causality.

Mature determinism allows (in compatibilism) that humans are themselves agents of causality, and are also bound as they must be by the laws of physics, particularly the laws of cause and effect. Since there is no god, then nothing "is written" and the future remains unknown. We make our future by exercising our will within the limits of reality. Thought ultimately we can never be 'free' of ourselves.

Both Fatalsim and radical free will doctrines (necessary for god botherers) both insist on flouting the laws of physics. Fatalists may give humans free will but nonetheless events have to comply with that "'which was written" by Allah. And the crazy Christians (Calvinists not withstanding) have to insist that free will exists so that despite a person's experience, reason, knowledge, and situation is still nonetheless 'free" to chose the baby Jesus as their saviour.