Free Will vs Determinism

[henry quirk]

Dave,

Determinism bothers me cuz it can lead to travesty and horror.

As I say: convince a man that he's only a product of a chain of events, that he has no real capacity to self-direct, and you can make of him what you will, use him in all manner of deplorable ways.

Try googling the following...

politics of free will

...and read some of the pieces that come up.

There is a definite skew against the notion of a free will (against self-direction) going so far as to frame free will as dangerous.

In every sphere there are mercenary, opportunistic types lookin' to get a leg up on the other guy by eroding the other guy's capacity for self-direction and redefining him as merely 'object'.

Determinism feeds this effort:


'Science (it must be true!) sez man is just a domino...deny this and you're a schmuck...don't be a schmuck...now, get back in line, do as your told, we got this, don't think, obey, submit, accept, sleep.'

'No, no, that experience of choosing, that there is an illusion...'you' are an illusion...we'll line you up with the others, make excellent use of your hands, your back, your money, but we have no use at all for 'you', which is just an illusion anyway.'

'Here, take these pils, you'll sleep better (think less)...better submission through chemistry...worship this 'god', but no other and do exactly what this 'god' commands (ignore the guy behind the curtain).'

'love? unverifiable balderdash! self? smoke and mirrors! responsibility? let us shoulder that! your child? destinied for service to the community, a cog to be inserted along all the others, like you, like me (though as first among equals, I'm a somewhat more important cog, larger, entitled to more).'

'You are a sum of parts, a link in a chain, a bit of the Whole...do your part, walk that line...don't think, obey, submit, accept, sleep.'


You believe I exaggerate? Look at the world, see it, tell me I'm wrong.

Now, couple my view of determinism with my own sense and active experience of 'being', choosing, self-directing and mebbe you'll have have an inkling of why I am immovable.

I cannot deny what I know to be fact (no matter what science sez), and, I'll not have me or mine used as feedstock.

[thedoc]

As for Dave: he doesn't bother me...determinism does.

As I say: if you convince a man he's just a product and not a source, when you strip him of self-direction and -responsibility (actually make those qualities 'bad') then you can make him into an instrument.

I got a problem with that.

As it was never my intention to give offence, I’m glad that I’ve given none. (So far! And I’ll keep trying not to!)

I confess to being puzzled by the passion that can be engendered by this debate. Why does determinism bother you so? As you believe it to be false, determinism itself can do no harm, so I assume it’s the determinists who bother you. But I can’t see how determinists pose any threat. We don’t go around beheading people for believing in free will. The limit of our ambition is to attempt to persuade, and in this endeavour we’re strikingly unsuccessful, as this thread shows!

Speaking for myself, my sense of direction comes from within, caused though it be. I regret actions that harm others and feel responsible for them, caused though those actions be. As for being instrumental, used as an instrument by who or what?

We determinists aren’t aliens, you know.

If I might interject here, the problem isn't with Determinists who are content to believe, and allow others to believe what they will, but with Determinists who insist that everyone believe as they do. I know there is only a small minority but they cause trouble way out of proportion to their numbers. I would prefer that all Determinists would just be content to believe what they wish, and let others believe as they wish, and I feel the same about those who believe in free will, just let everyone else alone if they don't believe the same thing. Talk with them and tell them what you believe, but don't stand on a street corner and shout at them.

[Hobbes' Choice]

As for Dave: he doesn't bother me...determinism does.

As I say: if you convince a man he's just a product and not a source, when you strip him of self-direction and -responsibility (actually make those qualities 'bad') then you can make him into an instrument.

I got a problem with that.

As it was never my intention to give offence, I’m glad that I’ve given none. (So far! And I’ll keep trying not to!)

I confess to being puzzled by the passion that can be engendered by this debate. Why does determinism bother you so? As you believe it to be false, determinism itself can do no harm, so I assume it’s the determinists who bother you. But I can’t see how determinists pose any threat. We don’t go around beheading people for believing in free will. The limit of our ambition is to attempt to persuade, and in this endeavour we’re strikingly unsuccessful, as this thread shows!

Speaking for myself, my sense of direction comes from within, caused though it be. I regret actions that harm others and feel responsible for them, caused though those actions be. As for being instrumental, used as an instrument by who or what?

We determinists aren’t aliens, you know.

If I might interject here, the problem isn't with Determinists who are content to believe, and allow others to believe what they will, but with Determinists who insist that everyone believe as they do. I know there is only a small minority but they cause trouble way out of proportion to their numbers. I would prefer that all Determinists would just be content to believe what they wish, and let others believe as they wish, and I feel the same about those who believe in free will, just let everyone else alone if they don't believe the same thing. Talk with them and tell them what you believe, but don't stand on a street corner and shout at them.

But your 'belief' is not enough. Belief is never enough, and you thinking it is, is symptomatic with most of the problems of the world and the USA in particular.

[Eodnhoj7]

I do not understand exactly how determinism can be played against free will. For a will to be free it must manifest order. The aspect of determinism as a causal chain allows a necessary process of propagation that allows a form of creation and/or observation. To eradicate determinism is to eradicate the will to be essentially free.

Now the depth of "freedom" in the ability to observe, create, etc. is another issue altogether. However regardless of depth, existence is existence and the size and scope of the will, its freedom, and its ability to manifest itself is irrelevant as existence is a yes or no question.

Now on the other hand a complete determinism would eradicate any freedom of the will and in effect lead to no freedom whatsoever. The problem occurs however, that if we live in a completely deterministic universe: "Why is the universe manifesting this conversation about the freedom of the will if their is none?" There is no reason to lie or deceive in a completely deterministic universe as lies and deception requires a choice or some form, otherwise deception would be impossible. Their is no reason to deceive in a completely deterministic universe.

The third aspect to be address is the synthesis of the above to points. We need some level of determinism to exist, while on the other hand complete determinism eradicates any need for freedom.

A necessary duality of flux and stability results, where the freedom of the will can be viewed as a probabilistic determinism. This probabilistic determinism allows for a causal chain as a necessary element of structure while simultaneously allowing for random variables to decide the form and function of the chain structure. This inherent duality of the will, that the will contains but is not strictly limited too, allows a non-contradictory synthesis of each of these perspectives.

[Dave Mangnall]

If I might interject here, the problem isn't with Determinists who are content to believe, and allow others to believe what they will, but with Determinists who insist that everyone believe as they do. I know there is only a small minority but they cause trouble way out of proportion to their numbers. I would prefer that all Determinists would just be content to believe what they wish, and let others believe as they wish, and I feel the same about those who believe in free will, just let everyone else alone if they don't believe the same thing. Talk with them and tell them what you believe, but don't stand on a street corner and shout at them.

Hi, Doc.
Your interjection is very interesting. I’ve never met or heard of any of these insistent determinists myself, and if I did I wouldn’t like them. Are any of them famous? One thing I know: if I tried insisting that my friends believe what I believe, about determinism or anything else, then in no time at all I’d have no friends at all!

[Dave Mangnall]

Dave,

Determinism bothers me cuz it can lead to travesty and horror.

As I say: convince a man that he's only a product of a chain of events, that he has no real capacity to self-direct, and you can make of him what you will, use him in all manner of deplorable ways.

Try googling the following...

politics of free will

...and read some of the pieces that come up.

Hi, Henry.

I shall certainly do what you suggest.

You write of a terrifying world beyond my experience or knowledge. But then, I’m just an elderly retired man, leading a quiet, contemplative life, who likes to discuss philosophy.

I won’t trouble you with any further questions about your belief. You’ve given me a very vivid picture.

[Dave Mangnall]

I looked up 'causal nexus in philosophy'. The phrase "causal nexus" was first mentioned in these forums, as far as I can remember, by Dave Mangnall.

Hi, Belinda.

And there I was, thinking I’d invented a phrase! I’ll have to stop using it now, because looking up your reference showed that “nexus” was used as a link, rather than a network. Can I get away with “Causal Network” instead?

I have checked with a professional physicist about Hume's constant conjunction finding that there is no detectable 'cause' event C that intervenes between the association of events A and B.There is in fact a physical event C that intervenes between associated events A and B.

What did Hume have to say about events that didn’t happen constantly, but had only happened once or twice? I’m thinking of his decision to withhold publication of his thoughts on religion during his lifetime for fear of dire consequences, which might include execution! I’m guessing he saw a potential cause-effect relationship there!

[Dave Mangnall]

You wrote " Try Honderich’s “How Free Are You?” ". May I recommend the shorter and paperback version?

I didn't know there was a longer hardback version!

What Free Willers omit is that Free Will is not so much free as random. If an event is uncaused it is random.

If I understand the Free Willians’ position correctly, human choice is an uncaused cause, and they would therefore reject the charge of randomness.

This seems to be why questions as to how they choose cannot be answered; within their model there is no “how”, because that would be to imply causation.

I’m sure Immanuel or one of the others will be down on me like a ton of bricks if I’ve misrepresented their position.

[Belinda]

Dave Mangnall wrote:

If I understand the Free Willians’ position correctly, human choice is an uncaused cause, and they would therefore reject the charge of randomness.

That's right, Free Will is uncaused cause. The only rightful claimant to uncaused cause is God or ,if you are a Pantheist, nature as a whole.

Apart from God, or Nature as a whole, a choice must be either random or caused.

[henry quirk]

Dave,

Speakin' only for me...

'Free will' is a placeholder...there isn't a 'free' or a 'will'...there's a human individual who thinks, feels, self-refers, pauses, considers, assesses, intends, concludes, then does...choice is what a human individual does.

The 'cause' is the human individual.

Philosphically, this is known as *'agent-causation' or *'agency', a strain, I suppse of *'libertarian incompatibilism' which -- again -- doesn't deny cause & effect, but simply suggests that some aspect of cause & effect is wrong when it comes to, or doesn't apply to, certain complex systems (like the human brain/body and the 'self' arising out of or extending out from it).

Most defintely each of us is mired in countless causal chains. What folks on my side believe is that we can initiate chains (in choosing 'this' rather than 'that') and that we can redirect some existing chains. We believe there is sufficient evidence in our favor (even if only subjective) to be taken seriously. We believe the case for determinism hasn't been won by your side.

#

Eodnhaj,

I mention (in passing) up-thread the idea that free will may be a nondeterministic algorithm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondete ... _algorithm










*three more placeholders that don't really mean anything

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Free will' is a placeholder...there isn't a 'free' or a 'will'...there's a human individual who thinks, feels, self-refers, pauses, considers, assesses, intends, concludes, then does...choice is what a human individual does.

The 'cause' is the human individual.

I agree that humans choose. As Henry says, choosing is what we do a lot of the time. I don't agree that the cause of the choice is solely the human individual. The human individual did not choose that unexpected storm that was part of the reason he got pneumonia. The human presumably did not choose to be born blind. Or to have an abusive parent that formed his character as a person lacking trust in others.

True, the human individual may very often choose entirely voluntarily. He want to do what he has choosen to do. Why is he so favoured by fortune that he can do what he chooses to do? Because he is rich, has nice friends, a good wife, has good health, is beautiful to look at, has a satisfying profession, lives at the seaside , is blessed with a contented nature, is full of love for others, etc etc.These are all causes.And there is no choice that is uncaused.

[henry quirk]

Belinda,

We have little say so in our (intial) circumstance beyond choosing how to respond or react to it.

I'm blind...had no say so in that...have all the say so in the world how I deal with blindness...blindness is my circumstane, I choose how I function with the flaw.

Dad beat me every day...I can live within that or I can move beyond it...my choice.

And: as an ugly, poor, misanthrope, I tell you plainly, my capacity for choice is not hobbled by my looks, my lacks, or my distastes.

Don't confuse shading circumstance (within or without) for cause.

[henry quirk]

And, no, I'm not blind (vision ain't the greatest, though), and my Pop never beat me (though we didn't and don't get along).

I am ugly, poor, and misanthropic, though.

[thedoc]

If I might interject here, the problem isn't with Determinists who are content to believe, and allow others to believe what they will, but with Determinists who insist that everyone believe as they do. I know there is only a small minority but they cause trouble way out of proportion to their numbers. I would prefer that all Determinists would just be content to believe what they wish, and let others believe as they wish, and I feel the same about those who believe in free will, just let everyone else alone if they don't believe the same thing. Talk with them and tell them what you believe, but don't stand on a street corner and shout at them.

Hi, Doc.
Your interjection is very interesting. I’ve never met or heard of any of these insistent determinists myself, and if I did I wouldn’t like them. Are any of them famous? One thing I know: if I tried insisting that my friends believe what I believe, about determinism or anything else, then in no time at all I’d have no friends at all!

There are a few right here on this forum, they post that determinism is absolutely true and refuse to consider the possibility of free will.

[Belinda]

Belinda,

We have little say so in our (intial) circumstance beyond choosing how to respond or react to it.

I'm blind...had no say so in that...have all the say so in the world how I deal with blindness...blindness is my circumstane, I choose how I function with the flaw.

Dad beat me every day...I can live within that or I can move beyond it...my choice.

And: as an ugly, poor, misanthrope, I tell you plainly, my capacity for choice is not hobbled by my looks, my lacks, or my distastes.

Don't confuse shading circumstance (within or without) for cause.

Strength of character, so-called 'willpower', is caused by the individual's upbringing and inherited characteristics.