Free Will vs Determinism

[Immanuel Can]

But who could argue that everything is free-willed? You are not your own maker, are you? And the day of your death, have you been consulted about that? If offered the choice, who would free-will-choose paralysis or blindness or cancer? There is much that is beyond the ability of the chooser to choose...but perhaps not everything.

I agree. Within causal determinism you are more likely to have choices about what you make of your life or death, because you will have learned to form adequate reasoned judgements. Within a reality where there is Free Will you don't choose freely because Free Will is uncaused and is therefore random not reasoned choice.

But with CD, you don't "choose" at all. And you cannot "learn" anything other that what you were causally determined to know. Your "judgments" do not change anything.

As I consider your responses, I think the the truth is that perhaps you don't actually believe in CD at all. For there is no possibility of free will within a CD universe. And it's not just me who says that, but OL as well, and more importantly, all the academics who do review of articles for IEP. So you're in the minority there, I'm afraid.

I would say that the truth seems to be that you're just a regular proponent of free will causality. You just don't realize that while belief in such free will has no trouble absorbing things like causality and some preordained events, CD cannot accept the possibility of even one free will event, one genuine "choice" or any volitional causality at all.

But I suppose we can leave it there.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But with CD, you don't "choose" at all. And you cannot "learn" anything other that what you were causally determined to know. Your "judgments" do not change anything.

We all choose from the moment we are weaned until we become dotards. People who are unable to choose have to be cared for by others or perish.

The question is whether our choices are free, or not.

So-called 'Free Will' choices are outwith causation, or as you might say, "Free of causation". So Free Will choices cannot be caused by anything other than this 'free will' thingy whatever that might be.

For people who reject Free Will , freedom is increased freedom of choice within perceived possibilities. Reason and knowledge are what set us apart from inanimate entities and confer upon us greater freedom of choice that inanimate entities have. Freedom is relative to reason and knowledge. This can be demonstrated by the thinking man who uses his reason and knowledge to look before he leaps, to engage brain before mouth .

[henry quirk]

"We all choose from the moment we are weaned until we become dotards."

Not in a determined universe, which is what you favor, yes?

[Belinda]

"We all choose from the moment we are weaned until we become dotards."

Not in a determined universe, which is what you favor, yes?

My choices are determined by my personality, my state of health, my finances, what's available to me and so on.

[Immanuel Can]

My choices are determined by my personality, my state of health, my finances, what's available to me and so on.

"My choices are determined..." is a line that makes as much sense as, "my ice is superheated."

[Belinda]

My choices are determined by my personality, my state of health, my finances, what's available to me and so on.

"My choices are determined..." is a line that makes as much sense as, "my ice is superheated."

Dictionary

choices
choice

noun
plural noun: choices
1.an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.
"the choice between good and evil"
synonyms: option, alternative, possibility, possible course of action;

2.the right or ability to choose.
"I had to do it, I had no choice"
synonyms: selection, choosing, picking;

3.a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
"you can have a sofa made in a choice of forty fabrics"
synonyms: selection, choosing, picking;

Y

You can surely see that animals other than humans also choose? Choice is "an act of choosing---". You can observe an animal doing the choosing act. You can observe a child or adult doing the choosing act.
True, we don't ordinarily say that a flower chooses to turn its face to the sunlight, but this may be because there is a long standing tradition of Free Will set in place by the very powerful institution of Christianity.

It would be odd to say " Given their choice, nettles will flourish near to human habitation". And I know that you Free Willists believe that of all creation only humans have Free Will. However it is not uncommon for Free Willists to observe of cats and dogs that from time to time they can be seen in the act of choosing.There are undoubtedly causes for the animals' acts of choosing. Cats and dogs are the same as us in experiencing the reflex arc(I tried to paste one of the many easy diagrams) in which case the animals and we don't choose for to choose is to deliberate with more or less cogitation.

If you and I, Immanuel, were to substitute the word 'deliberate' for the word 'choose' would this sort the disagreement?

[Londoner]

But with CD, you don't "choose" at all. And you cannot "learn" anything other that what you were causally determined to know.

So everything is the result of cause and effect, except us? We cannot be a cause, we cannot change the world - we are only allowed to be an effect!

If we think that everything is determined, we would have to drop the notion of 'cause' altogether, since that implies the world is made up of separate things that act on other separate things. But if everything was determined, then the notion that there are separate things, and that these things alter with time, must be mistaken. 'Causes' and 'effects' are identical and therefore meaningless. Everything was as it is now, and always has been. There is no time, because there have been no events.

Except it isn't like that, not to me. I do not experience the world as static. I can and do distinguish myself from other things and I can also experience change. Maybe God does experience it as determined; maybe seen from outside the universe there is no change, but I am not in that position.

CD is just another metaphysical theory, one which cannot be disproved, but then that is true of all metaphysical theories. And like all such metaphysical theories, that we cannot know doesn't matter, because it wouldn't change anything.

[Immanuel Can]

Duplicate.

[Immanuel Can]

My choices are determined by my personality, my state of health, my finances, what's available to me and so on.

"My choices are determined..." is a line that makes as much sense as, "my ice is superheated."

Dictionary

I'm always bemused when someone quotes the dictionary as if it's some kind of final authority on the ontological reality of something...

You'll find several other words in there, such as "unicorn," "leprechaun" and "extraterrestrial."

If you and I, Immanuel, were to substitute the word 'deliberate' for the word 'choose' would this sort the disagreement?

You mean the "disagreement" between your beliefs and those of the Causal Determinists?

After all, you and I don't have any real "disagreement" about the existence of free will; we both think it does, it would seem. You think people can make "choices" or "decisions," whereas CD'ers would hold that both are mere appearances we happen (for no reason they manage to explain) to overlay on the deep fact of the absolute causal and non-personal predetermination of the "choice" or "decision" that can ensue.

But you and CD'ers certainly do have a disagreement. I don't think that changing the language slightly will sort it out with them.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

After all, you and I don't have any real "disagreement" about the existence of free will; we both think it does, it would seem. You think people can make "choices" or "decisions," whereas CD'ers would hold that both are mere appearances we happen (for no reason they manage to explain) to overlay on the deep fact of the absolute causal and non-personal predetermination of the "choice" or "decision" that can ensue.

But you and CD'ers certainly do have a disagreement. I don't think that changing the language slightly will sort it out with them.

Everything is an appearance, and appearances matter. The appearance of the act of choosing matters. It matters, not because of "Free Will" but because choosing is where freedom is, the more choices there are: the more the freedom.

[Immanuel Can]

But with CD, you don't "choose" at all. And you cannot "learn" anything other that what you were causally determined to know.

So everything is the result of cause and effect, except us? We cannot be a cause, we cannot change the world - we are only allowed to be an effect!

Right. That's what CD would entail.

If we think that everything is determined, we would have to drop the notion of 'cause' altogether, since that implies the world is made up of separate things that act on other separate things. But if everything was determined, then the notion that there are separate things, and that these things alter with time, must be mistaken. 'Causes' and 'effects' are identical and therefore meaningless. Everything was as it is now, and always has been. There is no time, because there have been no events.

In a sense, that would be true.

And it would absolutely stultify all kinds of intellectual inquiry...not just in metaphysics, but in things like history, and ultimately in science itself! For what it would mean is that the right causal explanation is simply "the Big Bang". Everything else that has happened is merely a cascading chain of material cause-and-effect from that first moment of existence of things. It would turn all explanations of effects (phenomena) simply into the truism "it had to be that way, because...Big Bang."

Now, of course, even the silliest CD'er would have to recognize that the Big Bang itself has to be a mere "effect," not an ultimate cause...but that leads to a different debate, the debate about Ultimate Cause.

Meanwhile, you're quite right about what it would entail.

Except it isn't like that, not to me. I do not experience the world as static. I can and do distinguish myself from other things and I can also experience change.

I agree. I feel the same about it. But CD'ers have to insist we're merely fooling ourselves about that. Our "experience" is not any reflection of the deep fact of Determinism, they would say: we're simply wrong.

CD is just another metaphysical theory, one which cannot be disproved, but then that is true of all metaphysical theories.

Ironically, science itself depends on metaphysics. For example, how did we first learn that the scientific method works? It was not by trial and error, or by cause and effect, because it had never been tried before. So how did we do it?

I think that that question has been well-answered by Whitehead's Hypothesis. His answer was that when you metaphysically believe in a single, morally-consistent, rational, law-giver God, you have reason to expect regularities in nature. If you believe in polytheism, or in randomness, you don't. And this would explain why, given the many very intelligent people in all parts of the world, the scientific method appeared only in England during the 17th Century. There were plenty of bright folks elsewhere, but they had no metaphysical basis to expect regularities in Nature.

And like all such metaphysical theories, that we cannot know doesn't matter, because it wouldn't change anything.

It might. It might make one a fatalist, for one thing. Or a quietist. Or it might just leave one as a hypocrite who professes to believe in Determinism but acts like Determinism isn't true. But of course, nothing would then make being a hypocrite "wrong."

[Immanuel Can]

It matters, not because of "Free Will" but because choosing is where freedom is, the more choices there are: the more the freedom.

But Causal Determinism says there's really no such thing as "freedom" anyway, so the reason you're giving doesn't count to them. All is causally predetermined, they say, remember?

So your love of the illusion of "freedom," they would say, does not change anything. That "love" is itself merely a contingent and inexplicable epiphenomenon produced by some chain of causal determination.

[OuterLimits]

If you "can" do anything, then you are making choices. For an observer of nature, "can" usually means one doesn't know what the observed will do, not that it is a "free agent'. It's all about causation. If your choice is not caused or determined by the physical world, it must be caused by something psychological - else it is random. Now, this psychological cause we're looking at - what physical or psychological cause does IT have? And so on. When we are modeling this in our minds, an event either looks to be without any cause (not the same as free will) or having a definite cause (also not free will).

[henry quirk]

Belinda,

I'm hungry...there's a slice of pepperoni pizza (my favorite kind) and a cheeseburger (just the way I like it) on the table in front of me.

I say I can *choose to eat one or the other deliberately, with intent; or I can choose to eat neither deliberately, with intent.

Do you agree with me?









*my reason(s) for the choice could be anything (not hungry enough, getting ready for a long walk and don't wanna feel heavy, hungry now but holding back for an even better meal later, had a burger last night, had pizza last night, etc).

[Celebritydiscodave2]

Yes, and that which you believed chosen was actually preordained, this notion for you having made the choice was simply a psychological add on to the response. This notion of self determination comes with being self aware, it is required such that we may make sense of our self awareness. On a level you did make the choice, it is just that you could not have made it out of nothing/independently/in that actual moment only/without telling predisposition, for hereditary plus accumulative life experience, with that immediate to your decision perhaps playing the larger part, is all that exists for us to function a "decision". There is n`t anything else we can call upon, thus actual free will is a totally ridiculous notion. We are beings, not entities.